Dodgy solicitors

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Lets just clear a couple of things up, the solicitors you have contacted are not being dishonest in any way. Just like businesses they can cherry pick who they wish to act and deal with, they are not a public body or authority where they must consider certain circumstances. You cannot force a firm of solicitors into a contract making them take on your case, unless it is a universal one (which of course solicitors do not do this). I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't want to be acting for a person where you are making a total loss out of the claim because you cannot get your costs back or are unlikely to get your full costs and/or there's no prospect of success. A business is there to make money and its as simple as that.

I respectfully disagree. If their reasons for refusing me a service are because they themselves have a tendency to discriminate then this is clearly not acceptable. As I say, in one case they did not even ask for any details of the case before suggesting the case had poor prospects. If this is not dishonest then what is?

Further, if they cannot make any profit out of legal aid contracts then they should not have a contract with the Legal Aid Agency in the first instance. It is a bit like private dentists who have a contract with the NHS. They can't have it both ways.

All that being said there are services called pro-bono in which lawyers offer to take on cases free of charge but again, they are free to pick and choose which cases they take on again for the same reasons above. If you want legal aid then if the law says you must make an application via the telephone then that is what you must do. Before solicitors take on your case and start work they will usually conduct background checks and part of this will be advising you of alternative funding which you may be entitled to. So just because they didn't advise you at the offset that you must make an application via telephone for legal aid does not make them dishonest.

You may also wish to consult Citizens Advice bureau where they do offer free advice usually by appointments only.

It seems you have indicated that your case or cases relate to discrimination and so there are probably people on here that have some knowledge on this so it may be worth posting your situation. If not, I think the posts have pretty much covered your concerns and you have now realised that you need to call to apply for legal aid for discrimination

I'm not sure what the law says about the way one should go about seeking assistance via legal aid. It seems a bit confusing and I am getting conflicting information.

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I respectfully disagree. If their reasons for refusing me a service are because they themselves have a tendency to discriminate then this is clearly not acceptable.

Can you clarify how they have discriminated you? Telling you that you have poor prospects of a case is not discrimination but a mere opinion. They may not have needed further details of the matter if it related to something specific which they felt your case didn't fit into or again, did not have real prospects of success. It sounds like they are making a decision based on a non-legal aid basis, which again they are perfectly entitled to do.

If you honestly feel you have been discriminated against then I would suggest putting it in writing to the law firm, and if your still not satisfied then you can take court action, which based on the information so far, I don't think will get very far.

If you want legal aid then you have a number for them, why not give them a call and they will be able to direct you whether or not you qualify for legal aid and what the steps are.

[MIKE770]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

To be honest contacting SRA/legal ombudsman etc etc etc etc is a waste of time, they find every excuse not to get involved. the old boys net is still in existence.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Can you clarify how they have discriminated you? Telling you that you have poor prospects of a case is not discrimination but a mere opinion. They may not have needed further details of the matter if it related to something specific which they felt your case didn't fit into or again, did not have real prospects of success. It sounds like they are making a decision based on a non-legal aid basis, which again they are perfectly entitled to do.

If you honestly feel you have been discriminated against then I would suggest putting it in writing to the law firm, and if your still not satisfied then you can take court action, which based on the information so far, I don't think will get very far.

If you want legal aid then you have a number for them, why not give them a call and they will be able to direct you whether or not you qualify for legal aid and what the steps are.

I was not given a decision based fully on legal aid eligibility etc. I was given a decision that the case had poor prospects without even seeking to establish what aspects of discrimination I was claiming or the background of the matter - clearly not a sound or fair decision. I would suggest that they do not treat every client that comes through their door or inbox in the same fashion which leads me to the inference that they have treated me less favourably (direct discrimination).

I have indeed raised a formal complaint with the firm (I mention no names) and they have dealt with my complaint in a very evasive fashion. Indeed I still do not know how they have come to the conclusion they came to and it appears they are seeking to hide behind 'legal opinion' though are doing a very poor job of that.

I am in the process of reporting this firm to the SRA and the Legal Ombudsman but as far as taking it to court I am wondering if I could do without the additional stress.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest contacting SRA/legal ombudsman etc etc etc etc is a waste of time, they find every excuse not to get involved. the old boys net is still in existence.

I would be inclined to agree.

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I was not given a decision based fully on legal aid eligibility etc ... I would suggest that they do not treat every client that comes through their door or inbox in the same fashion which leads me to the inference that they have treated me less favourably (direct discrimination).

Discrimination is based on a protected characteristic: Age, sex, religion or belief, race, sexual orientation or gender reassignment or disability - I don't think what you are saying falls into that? Even f you could argue that it did, your inference is a pretty bold statement which would have trouble producing evidence to that effect.

SRA may look into it but probably deem that nothing wrong occurred and you'll have to wait 8 weeks or final decision from the firm before you can go to LeO - again you will have to jump the same hurdle in proving your statement. If you make a statement you have to back it up by evidence.

[MIKE770]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Most responses from them is the Solicitor for us to investigate has to be that you assigned to your case, if you have a complaint against a solicitor not representing you ======HARD LUCK, proof in writing on their sites tell you this.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Discrimination is based on a protected characteristic: Age, sex, religion or belief, race, sexual orientation or gender reassignment or disability - I don't think what you are saying falls into that? Even f you could argue that it did, your inference is a pretty bold statement which would have trouble producing evidence to that effect.

SRA may look into it but probably deem that nothing wrong occurred and you'll have to wait 8 weeks or final decision from the firm before you can go to LeO - again you will have to jump the same hurdle in proving your statement. If you make a statement you have to back it up by evidence.

It does because I enquired if they could take on a disability discrimination case.

What is LeO?

I realise that these cases are inherently difficult to prove and the firm will try and come up with any and every excuse at its disposal.

I sent the firm another e-mail via a Gmail e-mail address using a different name and a different disability and circumstances. They then tried to extract background information more appropriately and then suggested they were too busy. So to that end, I have established a comparator.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Most responses from them is the Solicitor for us to investigate has to be that you assigned to your case, if you have a complaint against a solicitor not representing you ======HARD LUCK, proof in writing on their sites tell you this.

So they can't investigate cases where you were a prospective client? Seriously?

[MIKE770]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I was trying to get two solicitors investigated, because they were representing other side then SRA etc did not want to know, all they stated was contact legal ombudsman who says contact SRA all the same replies no matter who you contacted even barrasters regulator.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I was trying to get two solicitors investigated, because they were representing other side then SRA etc did not want to know, all they stated was contact legal ombudsman who says contact SRA all the same replies no matter who you contacted even barrasters regulator.

I have to say I am not surprised.

I had my first brief experience with the Legal Ombudsman who seemed to bend over backwards for the firm/solicitor. I complained to them that the advice I received from the solicitor was not clear.

In my correspondence to the solicitor I asserted that is was obvious, in the circumstances, that they were not taking on my case. I think I asserted along the lines of 'it is obvious that you view this case as having poor prospects'. I then went on to query the reasons and rationale (to which I did not get a full response).

The Ombudsman went on to 'find' that because I said it was obvious that the case had poor prospects that she was was happy I understood 'everything'. A sound and fair decision? Not quite. As for challenging this nonsense via Judicial Review - forget about it.

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

That's what I would like to know.



I've never approached the majority of these firms before. In any event, are they allowed to cherry-pick clients and cases (whilst being dishonest in refusing to assist)?

"
Being a solicitor is a business, they have no obligation to take on any work, the idea of " cherry picking" is I suspect a solicitor stating that the have no expertise in a particular area of law e.g. Family Law, Commercial Law etc. Of course solicitors and barristers pick and choose their clients and the type of cases they will deal with and why shouldn't they.

nem
Why is it " dishonest " to decline to assist you.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

"
Being a solicitor is a business, they have no obligation to take on any work, the idea of " cherry picking" is I suspect a solicitor stating that the have no expertise in a particular area of law e.g. Family Law, Commercial Law etc. Of course solicitors and barristers pick and choose their clients and the type of cases they will deal with and why shouldn't they.

nem
Why is it " dishonest " to decline to assist you.

No, in most cases they made it clear they were either too busy or they viewed the case has having poor prospects.

They can pick and choose but they should not be dishonest when what they really mean to say is "sorry, not interested". Moreover and more importantly, they should not discriminate.

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

No, in most cases they made it clear they were either too busy or they viewed the case has having poor prospects.

They can pick and choose but they should not be dishonest when what they really mean to say is "sorry, not interested". Moreover and more importantly, they should not discriminate.

Where is the discrimination in this?

How can you possibly know what anyone really means??

You will notice here on LB that many of advise/help in various
specific areas e.g. I don't get involved in the parking forums and
only rarely in family law matters is that discrimination? No of course
it's not, nor is it dishonest of anyone to decline to respond on a
subject on which there are not familiar with.

nem

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

No, in most cases they made it clear they were either too busy or they viewed the case has having poor prospects.

They can pick and choose but they should not be dishonest when what they really mean to say is "sorry, not interested". Moreover and more importantly, they should not discriminate.

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.

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

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Where is the discrimination in this?

See my previous posts. You may have accidentally skipped over them.

How can you possibly know what anyone really means??

Exactly.

You will notice here on LB that many of advise/help in various
specific areas e.g. I don't get involved in the parking forums and
only rarely in family law matters is that discrimination? No of course
it's not, nor is it dishonest of anyone to decline to respond on a
subject on which there are not familiar with.
nem

Indeed, if they respond by saying that they do not have the expertise. However, that is not always the case.