Dodgy solicitors

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Have you found out whether you are eligible for legal aid? And at the time you enquired about your matter it didn't seem to me that you already called and qualified as your posts have indicated that you didn't know what to do and therefore could not have required an opinion from a solicitor unless it was confirmed that your case was taken on and you could receive legal aid.

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.

This is very subjective and I guess could be argued either way but as I said your case appears to be very weak. Sorry if you think I'm playing devil's advocate here, I try to look at things objectively from both points of view and quite a lot of the time people who wish to make claims and arguments only think on one track, including myself on occasions!

I take on board the disability characteristic you will rely on but you have to remember the case will rest on a balance of probabilities, you will need to convince the court more than 50% that the solicitors specifically discriminated against you by saying a few words and isn't quite what you want to hear, and the fact they appear to be unware that you were seeking their help with legal aid. I can't really answer legal aid questions but I would imagine just because they are a legal aid firm does not mean they must take on your case.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Have you found out whether you are eligible for legal aid? And at the time you enquired about your matter it didn't seem to me that you already called and qualified as your posts have indicated that you didn't know what to do and therefore could not have required an opinion from a solicitor unless it was confirmed that your case was taken on and you could receive legal aid.

This is very subjective and I guess could be argued either way but as I said your case appears to be very weak. Sorry if you think I'm playing devil's advocate here, I try to look at things objectively from both points of view and quite a lot of the time people who wish to make claims and arguments only think on one track, including myself on occasions!

I take on board the disability characteristic you will rely on but you have to remember the case will rest on a balance of probabilities, you will need to convince the court more than 50% that the solicitors specifically discriminated against you by saying a few words and isn't quite what you want to hear, and the fact they appear to be unware that you were seeking their help with legal aid. I can't really answer legal aid questions but I would imagine just because they are a legal aid firm does not mean they must take on your case.

Yes, I qualify for legal aid. The curious thing is this firm never even bothered to say anything about the fact that this request for assistance needed to come through the Civil Legal Advice gateway. It may be that because there was another public law matter in the mix that I was able to bypass this. Still, I would have thought they could claim a fee for providing basic legal advice in all respects as there was certainly not much aiding going on here. In any event, do most firms not offer the first bit of advice for free?

I did make the firm aware that I was entitled to legal aid. Indeed, I even enquired as to whether or not I would be entitled to expectational funding but was told the public law case was 'not the most serious kind' therefore I didn't qualify for this.

You would have thought the firm would have fleshed out the reasons they did not take on all my cases after I raised a formal complaint with them complaining of disability discrimination. They are not able to charge for dealing with complaints but completely failed to offer any reasonable explanation for ditching the disability discrimination case (indeed they made no reasonable enquiries about this and actually avoided all of mine). As for the other cases, it appears they dealt with those exceptionally poorly.

I would suggest that, on balance, there is now way they approached the disability case fairly throughout. Whether this amounts to discrimination is perhaps a matter that may only become more clear in time.

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Yes, I qualify for legal aid. The curious thing is this firm never even bothered to say anything about the fact that this request for assistance needed to come through the Civil Legal Advice gateway. It may be that because there was another public law matter in the mix that I was able to bypass this. Still, I would have thought they could claim a fee for providing basic legal advice in all respects as there was certainly not much aiding going on here. In any event, do most firms not offer the first bit of advice for free?

I did make the firm aware that I was entitled to legal aid. Indeed, I even enquired as to whether or not I would be entitled to expectational funding but was told the public law case was 'not the most serious kind' therefore I didn't qualify for this.

You would have thought the firm would have fleshed out the reasons they did not take on all my cases after I raised a formal complaint with them complaining of disability discrimination. They are not able to charge for dealing with complaints but completely failed to offer any reasonable explanation for ditching the disability discrimination case (indeed they made no reasonable enquiries about this and actually avoided all of mine). As for the other cases, it appears they dealt with those exceptionally poorly.

I would suggest that, on balance, there is now way they approached the disability case fairly throughout. Whether this amounts to discrimination is perhaps a matter that may only become more clear in time.

Have top agree with Rob here, solicitors have free choice as to what cases they take as Rob said they
must consider if the case on the balance of probabilities has more than a 50% chance of success.
As I've said I don't think you have been discriminated here the solicitors are not " dodgy " at all.

nem

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Have to agree with Rob here, solicitors have free choice as to what cases they take as Rob said they
must consider if the case on the balance of probabilities has more than a 50% chance of success.
As I've said I don't think you have been discriminated here the solicitors are not " dodgy " at all.

nem

I think the key words here are 'must consider'. This didn't happen.

Also, because many crimes go unresolved does not mean no crime occurred. Its means the authorities were just unable to present sufficient evidence to the courts.

[spirit2534]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Thanks Amethyst.

I have no issue with solicitors asking for more information before looking at the prospects however they ask for more details when they are allegedly far too busy which rings alarm bells.

I have even reverted back to them asking for fuller reasons as to why they asked for details when they did not have the resources and I get no response. Similarly, I ask for fuller reasons for the case allegedly having poor prospects and that seems to be like drawing blood out of a stone.

I have many potential cases. A lot of them relate to potential discrimination claims. I am no stranger to being discriminated against hence the reason I am slightly concerned in these circumstances.

Are Solicitors different from other businesses?

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Are Solicitors different from other businesses?

Solicitors are humans. Humans discriminate otherwise there would be no equality law and courts/tribunals to enforce this.

[wales01man]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

If you feel so strongly you have a case take them to court opinions differ on here not that they matter much only a Judge a decide .
Put al the facts together and present a case if you win some on here were right lose then others were right

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I think the key words here are 'must consider'. This didn't happen.

Also, because many crimes go unresolved does not mean no crime occurred. Its means the authorities were just unable to present sufficient evidence to the courts.

I expect it did happen, but the solicitors did not feel any need to enter into further dialogue.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

If you feel so strongly you have a case take them to court opinions differ on here not that they matter much only a Judge a decide .
Put al the facts together and present a case if you win some on here were right lose then others were right

Indeed, I am deliberating this.

- - - Updated - - -

I expect it did happen, but the solicitors did not feel any need to enter into further dialogue.

Hmmm... As you can tell I am not at all convinced. You also seem to know more about this matter than I do?

[nemesis45]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Indeed, I am deliberating this.

- - - Updated - - -



Hmmm... As you can tell I am not at all convinced. You also seem to know more about this matter than I do?

I agree with Wales, if you are dissatisfied and continue to believe ( for what ever reason) you have be " discriminated" against start an action ( but you might need a solicitor" for what may well be a complicated case.

nem

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

I agree with Wales, if you are dissatisfied and continue to believe ( for what ever reason) you have be " discriminated" against start an action ( but you might need a solicitor" for what may well be a complicated case.

nem

Indeed, though I am not keen on taking on stressful and complicated cases. If indeed I do I will post an update here. I will also probably post on update on what the SRA and Ombudsman decide (rightly or wrongly).

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Update

The SRA has asserted that matters of discrimination are not for them to decide and I need to refer the matters to a court.

Seems rather impractical to have a code of conduct that they cannot fully enforce without the decision of a court. Just my thoughts but at least they are honest about it.

[R0b]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

A point of law is for the courts to decide not a regulated body. If on the back of the a court case the judge thinks there has been a sufficient breach of conduct from the solicitors in question then the SRA will then look into. But they are right, if it something where a firm of solicitors mishandles money or is dishonest in some way then that is usually within the remit of the SRA to take action without the need of a court. Your claim for discrimination requires a look at the facts and only a judge can make a judgment on that basis. Sounds to me they are basically telling you to go to court and get a judgment before they'll look into it, maybe because there is no case to be hard as we have all suggested.

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

A point of law is for the courts to decide not a regulated body. If on the back of the a court case the judge thinks there has been a sufficient breach of conduct from the solicitors in question then the SRA will then look into. But they are right, if it something where a firm of solicitors mishandles money or is dishonest in some way then that is usually within the remit of the SRA to take action without the need of a court. Your claim for discrimination requires a look at the facts and only a judge can make a judgment on that basis. Sounds to me they are basically telling you to go to court and get a judgement before they'll look into it, maybe because there is no case to be heard as we have all suggested.

Thanks Rob.

Are you willing to bet money on the fact that you (and others) think there is allegedly no case to answer here? :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[heisenberg]

Re: Dodgy solicitors

Incidentally and rather importantly, why is it the Legal Ombudsman allegedly able to look into these issue (very badly) whereas SRA are not? Seems a shambles to me...