Dodgy solicitors

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Again its a decision made by the firm, you'll find it very difficult to prove that they were not "busy". Solicitors have to be careful of not taking on too many cases as they could be found negligent if they handle too many files or just neglect others. As far as I know there are a handful of large legal aid firms and the rest are quite small. It is therefore likely that a combination of poor prospects of success, your case being complex, lack of expertise and/or they really are just too busy to take on another case.

I know. That's why I think can easily use that as an excuse if they were not too busy. I'm just suggesting that that option is certainly available to them if they were to behave unethically. It also seems it has already been conceded on this thread that they are indeed rather picky when it comes to taking on cases even when there are good prospects.

When you are told that your case does not have good prospects of success, they are in other words telling you they are not interested in taking on due to the prospects of the case.

and LeO is shorthand for Legal Ombudsman

As long as they provide some brief rationale however in one or two experiences they haven't (on one occasion they could not have possibly made an informed decision).

[jul]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Hi the SRA are meant to look in to this matters as send a copy to your M.P. The trouble now a days is that they are in each others pockets, conflict of interest.

Government is behind this

- - - Updated - - -

meant to say SRA should look in to these matters, get your evidence out................

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

[QUOTE=heisenberg;597046]I know. That's why I think can easily use that as an excuse if they were not too busy. I'm just suggesting that that option is certainly available to them if they were to behave unethically. It also seems it has already been conceded on this thread that they are indeed rather picky when it comes to taking on cases even when there are good prospects.

It all boils down to the fact if the solicitors don't want your business they don't have to take you as a client.
There's no mal practice no discrimination and no dishonesty at all.
nem

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Hi the SRA are meant to look in to this matters as send a copy to your M.P. The trouble now a days is that they are in each others pockets, conflict of interest.

Government is behind this

- - - Updated - - -

meant to say SRA should look in to these matters, get your evidence out................

A very strange post what has government got to do with this, the solicitors here have done
nothing wrong they are not bound in anyway to take any particular client.
Nothing for the SRA to investigate!

nem

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Hi the SRA are meant to look in to this matters as send a copy to your M.P. The trouble now a days is that they are in each others pockets, conflict of interest.

Government is behind this

- - - Updated - - -

meant to say SRA should look in to these matters, get your evidence out................

Hi Jul,

I gather so. I have already sent them one complaint and am drafting another (the one where I was told the case had poor prospects where there is absolutely no way they could have made a reasonably informed decision on this). Problem is these things are very difficult to prove as already suggested. I think only a very tiny amount of discrimination cases actually succeed in the courts and tribunals (most lawyers probably know this).

I think another problem is these people (Ombudsman, SRA and solicitors) generally don't care and just take the easiest route out . They just see cases/complaints coming their way every day the same way the courts and tribunals do.

Thanks to everyone who provided their point of view and opinion so far. They are all helpful.

- - - Updated - - -

It all boils down to the fact if the solicitors don't want your business they don't have to take you as a client.
There's no mal practice no discrimination and no dishonesty at all.
nem

So you condone discrimination then if that is the reason they do not want me as a client?

- - - Updated - - -

A very strange post what has government got to do with this, the solicitors here have done
nothing wrong they are not bound in anyway to take any particular client.
Nothing for the SRA to investigate!
nem

Seems you are suggesting solicitors are infallible?

A brief fact regarding discrimination:

No firm is going to overly concede to discriminating against a client and, on occasion, not even to themselves.

[EXC]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I have already sent them one complaint and am drafting another

SRA don't accept complaints.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

SRA don't accept complaints.

Okay, that is semantics. I've sent a report.

[EXC]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

If anything your grievance is about the level of service, it's not a conduct issue in my view.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

If anything your grievance is about the level of service, it's not a conduct issue in my view.

I see - could well be. However, if they provided a poorer service than they would others then this of course is direct discrimination.

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Hi Jul,

I gather so. I have already sent them one complaint and am drafting another (the one where I was told the case had poor prospects where there is absolutely no way they could have made a reasonably informed decision on this). Problem is these things are very difficult to prove as already suggested. I think only a very tiny amount of discrimination cases actually succeed in the courts and tribunals (most lawyers probably know this).

I think another problem is these people (Ombudsman, SRA and solicitors) generally don't care and just take the easiest route out . They just see cases/complaints coming their way every day the same way the courts and tribunals do.

Thanks to everyone who provided their point of view and opinion so far. They are all helpful.

- - - Updated - - -



So you condone discrimination then if that is the reason they do not want me as a client?

- - - Updated - - -



Seems you are suggesting solicitors are infallible?

A brief fact regarding discrimination:

No firm is going to overly concede to discriminating against a client and, on occasion, not even to themselves.

the
No not at all, BUT it still comes down to the simple fact a business does not have to is not obliged to take on any work they
don't want to.
Their are not discriminating " against a client" as you are not a client at that point!

I would be extremely surprised if the SRA found any fault with the solicitors conduct.

I have told a person this morning who came to me this morning privately for assistance
that I could not help with a very complicated family law problem because I do not have
the expertise or the time to help, she did not accuse me of discrimination or being dishonest.

As I said before I think that if you need legal advice on making claims against public authorities,
and or regulatory bodies such matters are highly difficult/complex and time consuming and not
suitable for a solicitor in general practice.
There are some barristers who you can now seek advice from without having previously consulted
a solicitor perhaps you should look for one with the specific knowledge of the area of law.

nem

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

No not at all, BUT it still comes down to the simple fact a business does not have to is not obliged to take on any work they
don't want to.
Their are not discriminating " against a client" as you are not a client at that point!

Equality law covers prospective clients in the same way it covers potential employees.

I would be extremely surprised if the SRA found any fault with the solicitors conduct.

I have told a person this morning who came to me this morning privately for assistance
that I could not help with a very complicated family law problem because I do not have
the expertise or the time to help, she did not accuse me of discrimination or being dishonest.

As I said before I think that if you need legal advice on making claims against public authorities,
and or regulatory bodies such matters are highly difficult/complex and time consuming and not
suitable for a solicitor in general practice.

There are some barristers who you can now seek advice from without having previously consulted
a solicitor perhaps you should look for one with the specific knowledge of the area of law.

nem

Nem, I think there may be a misunderstanding here old chap. They law firm in question said they did have the expertise and the resources. See also post #22.

[wales01man]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Can I politely ask what you think you can do about this alleged discrimination take them to Court?

As others have said on here this form of complaint is probably not of interest to the SRA Court would be the only option but what outcome would you expect?

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Can I politely ask what you think you can do about this alleged discrimination take them to Court?

As others have said on here this form of complaint is probably not of interest to the SRA Court would be the only option but what outcome would you expect?

I think the County Court route would be the preferred option. After all, they should be most familiar with the law (though not always). The SRA principles/code of conduct make it clear that no solicitor should discriminate but I suspect they will look at this from a layman's perspective which is not the best approach.

I am considering taking them to court however I may wait to see the responses I get back from the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA. I strongly suspect they will do everything they can to weasel themselves out of trouble knowing that if a claim were to be upheld it would be damaging for them as a business.

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I think the County Court route would be the preferred option. After all, they should be most familiar with the law (though not always). The SRA principles/code of conduct make it clear that no solicitor should discriminate but I suspect they will look at this from a layman's perspective which is not the best approach.

I am considering taking them to court however I may wait to see the responses I get back from the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA. I strongly suspect they will do everything they can to weasel themselves out of trouble knowing that if a claim were to be upheld it would be damaging for them as a business.

I'm afraid to say I still haven't seen any argument on discrimination here, as I pointed out whilst you may argue direct discrimination before you even get that far it has to fall under a protected characteristic, none of which I believe apply to your case. Solicitors are under no obligation to provide any reasoned answers as to why your case has poor prospects or any proper reason at all as to why they don't wish to take the case on. If you want that sort of information then its likely regarded as an opinion and that opinion comes at a cost.

If you intend on relying on the email you sent which the firm asked for further information and that is the only evidence then I can only say it will be a waste of time. Not every solicitor is the same and have varying degrees of expertise, so it is probable that the person who looked at your case on the second time asked for further information to clarify does not mean they are being discriminatory.

I mean no offence but I think this type of claim would be seen as vexatious if a court were to view this and has a good chance of being thrown out at the first hurdle. I suspect the SRA/ombudsman will come to the same conclusion. Rather than trying to focus on something that on a balance of probabilities is likely to fail, it might be wise to concentrate on seeking legal aid than trying to waste money arguing your case of discrimination against a firm. It just sounds like you are trying to latch onto claiming anything you can against this firm and the only thing that you could potentially bring is a very weak discrimination argument.

I've seen these types of arguments before and it tends to be with people who have a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do. I can't really add anything more than what I or others have previously said.

If you take it to court, good luck and please let us know the outcome either way.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I'm afraid to say I still haven't seen any argument on discrimination here, as I pointed out whilst you may argue direct discrimination before you even get that far it has to fall under a protected characteristic, none of which I believe apply to your case. Solicitors are under no obligation to provide any reasoned answers as to why your case has poor prospects or any proper reason at all as to why they don't wish to take the case on. If you want that sort of information then its likely regarded as an opinion and that opinion comes at a cost.

As I mentioned before, the protected characteristic is disability.

It also seems that you are suggesting that any solicitor can choose just to say nothing apart from 'I'm busy' or 'not for me' or 'sorry, poor prospects' when the really mean 'sorry, I don't like dealing with disability issues' leaving people like me with no recourse.

Legal aid is meant to fund the reasons and therefore legal opinion I'm afraid. I believe it goes beyond a simple 2 or 3 word response as people need to earn their wages believe it or not. In any event, they will need to justify their actions to a court and possibly the SRA and Legal Ombudsman as in the absence of an explanation the law says the discrimination claim needs to be upheld (section 136 of the Equality Act).

If you intend on relying on the email you sent which the firm asked for further information and that is the only evidence then I can only say it will be a waste of time. Not every solicitor is the same and have varying degrees of expertise, so it is probable that the person who looked at your case on the second time asked for further information to clarify does not mean they are being discriminatory.

I mean no offence but I think this type of claim would be seen as vexatious if a court were to view this and has a good chance of being thrown out at the first hurdle. I suspect the SRA/ombudsman will come to the same conclusion. Rather than trying to focus on something that on a balance of probabilities is likely to fail, it might be wise to concentrate on seeking legal aid than trying to waste money arguing your case of discrimination against a firm. It just sounds like you are trying to latch onto claiming anything you can against this firm and the only thing that you could potentially bring is a very weak discrimination argument.

I've seen these types of arguments before and it tends to be with people who have a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do. I can't really add anything more than what I or others have previously said.

If you take it to court, good luck and please let us know the outcome either way.

Sorry, it was exactly the same person who looked at the artificial enquiry.

Thanks for the support by the way. Talk about being devil's advocate... Are you sure you are not the devil himself? :tinysmile_twink_t2: