Breakdown or victimisation?

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

How many claims are you thinking of?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

How many claims are you thinking of?

I am just considering my legal position at the moment.

I think I mentioned in my other thread that these claims often cause more stress than they are worth.

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

The SRA prohibits a solicitor from acting for a client where there is an 'own interest conflict'.
SRA Code of conduct- from Chapter 3:
'You can never act where there is a conflict, or a significant risk of conflict, between you and your client.'

When a client accuses a solicitors firm of discrimination it would be a clear own interest conflict for that firm to represent that client.
If a firm acted for the client in these circumstances they would risk disciplinary action, public rebuke and substantial fines.

To find victimisation requires both the protected act and a detriment.
How can there be any detriment when the firm is simply complying with the mandatory SRA code of conduct?

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

As Sherlock Holmes would have it

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
'Sign of the Four'.

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I think that when you ask for advice and opinions you should be prepared to hear things that you may not like . I haven't read your other thread(s) so am only going on what little you have said here.
Discrimination due to sex or gender is protected so I think I am comparing like with like

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

The SRA prohibits a solicitor from acting for a client where there is an 'own interest conflict'.
SRA Code of conduct- from Chapter 3:
'You can never act where there is a conflict, or a significant risk of conflict, between you and your client.'

When a client accuses a solicitors firm of discrimination it would be a clear own interest conflict for that firm to represent that client.
If a firm acted for the client in these circumstances they would risk disciplinary action, public rebuke and substantial fines.

To find victimisation requires both the protected act and a detriment.
How can there be any detriment when the firm is simply complying with the mandatory SRA code of conduct?

I do not understand what the alleged conflict of interest was? A solicitor is meant to act in their client's best interests at all times. They argue there was no discrimination and that there was an alleged mutual breakdown (presumably a conflict of interest is a completely different matter).

- - - Updated - - -

I think that when you ask for advice and opinions you should be prepared to hear things that you may not like . I haven't read your other thread(s) so am only going on what little you have said here.
Discrimination due to sex or gender is protected so I think I am comparing like with like

Unfortunately you are not. Victimisation has nothing to do with a protected characteristic and everything to do with a protected act.

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

In terms of your alleged victimisation claim; what detriment have you been subjected to by this firm?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

In terms of your alleged victimisation claim; what detriment have you been subjected to by this firm?

Being denied a service now and in the foreseeable future.

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I would be denied membership of some high class establishments in this country would that be discrimination if I have a protected characteristic?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I would be denied membership of some high class establishments in this country would that be discrimination if I have a protected characteristic?

Jeez wales01man... Did you send them a letter before action alleging unlawful discrimination just before you were denied membership?

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I do not understand what the alleged conflict of interest was? A solicitor is meant to act in their client's best interests at all times. They argue there was no discrimination and that there was an alleged mutual breakdown (presumably a conflict of interest is a completely different matter).

Do you really not see a conflict of interest where solicitors represent a client in a discrimination claim when that same client contends that those same solicitors representing him have also discriminated against him?

If they represented you they would have access to all the information on which your claim was based. They would know all the strengths and weaknesses of your case. That confidential information could be very useful to them in defending your claim against them. Confidentiality is waived when you sue your own solicitors. An outside observer, including the SRA, would be likely to conclude that it could even be in the solicitors own interest for your initial claim to fail.

You sent a letter before action claiming that the firm had discriminated against you. How can you have trust and confidence in solicitors that you genuinely believe have discriminated against you?
Equally, how can a solicitors firm possibly have trust and confidence in a client who they believe has wrongly accused them of discrimination?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Do you really not see a conflict of interest where solicitors represent a client in a discrimination claim when that same client contends that those same solicitors representing him have also discriminated against him?

If they represented you they would have access to all the information on which your claim was based. They would know all the strengths and weaknesses of your case. That confidential information could be very useful to them in defending your claim against them. Confidentiality is waived when you sue your own solicitors. An outside observer, including the SRA, would be likely to conclude that it could even be in the solicitors own interest for your initial claim to fail.

You sent a letter before action claiming that the firm had discriminated against you. How can you have trust and confidence in solicitors that you genuinely believe have discriminated against you?
Equally, how can a solicitors firm possibly have trust and confidence in a client who they believe has wrongly accused them of discrimination?

I agree with you to an extent. It still appears you are arguing that victimisation does not apply to solicitors though? So, to that end, solicitors are able to victimise their clients with complete impunity.

I think such a matter rests on whether or not such a claim or claims would be issued in a court and of course the nature of those claims e.g. aiding an unlawful act. In those circumstances I would more agreeing. If I serve a letter before action and they serve a compelling response and the matter is taken no further is there sufficient justification to deny me a service in the future?

Moreover, in 10 years time if I approach this firm and they deny me a service how could they possibly justify that? They will also no doubt argue that any claim for victimisation is out of time.

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Hypothetical question but in reality I would be denied membership and expect to have no chance of winning in court.
I firmly believe that every one has the right to refuse to give a service to whoever they want its does not mean they are discriminating

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I agree with you to an extent. It still appears you are arguing that victimisation does not apply to solicitors though? So, to that end, solicitors are able to victimise their clients with complete impunity.

I think such a matter rests on whether or not such a claim or claims would be issued in a court and of course the nature of those claims e.g. aiding an unlawful act. In those circumstances I would more agreeing. If I serve a letter before action and they serve a compelling response and the matter is taken no further is there sufficient justification to deny me a service in the future?

Moreover, in 10 years time if I approach this firm and they deny me a service how could they possibly justify that? They will also no doubt argue that any claim for victimisation is out of time.

I would imagine that the first port of call re a complaint against a solicitor would be the firm's complaints procedure (if any), followed by a complaint to the SRA.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I would imagine that the first port of call re a complaint against a solicitor would be the firm's complaints procedure (if any), followed by a complaint to the SRA.

Yep, they are refusing to engage in any further correspondence from me. My (new) solicitor has even written to them and they have ignored his letter(s).

I raised a complaint with the Legal Ombudsman and they have agreed to investigate (which is a miracle as the Legal Ombudsman are hopeless in my opinion). I have asked them to put the complaint on hold pending my decision whether or not to take legal action.

- - - Updated - - -

Hypothetical question but in reality I would be denied membership and expect to have no chance of winning in court.
I firmly believe that every one has the right to refuse to give a service to whoever they want its does not mean they are discriminating

Discrimination claims are difficult to prove - I am not arguing that fact.