Defendant Lawyer recusal.

[rickierich]

Defendant A
Defendant B

These both have the same lawyer, but the lawyer incriminates Defendant A while defending Defendant B.
Could anyone tell me the process as the claimant, to have this lawyer removed from representing one of them or both of them.
Are there any CPR or European Laws which would enable me to get the judge to order the lawyer be removed from representing the defendants.
Case Law would also help thanks. If it goes forward as it is, it could and would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

[bluebottle]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

Hi Rickie,

I can fully understand your concern and indeed applaud your desire to see justice done. Knowing the situation as you do and without compromising your case, could you please send a PM to me outlining your concerns and I will try and advise you as to how to go about tackling this and avoid a possible miscarriage of justice.

BB

[miliitant]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/cha...uct/rule3.page





as stated

bluebottle is the man for this one but have a nose at the above link

i have no idea why a red line is through it but i believe the regulations are still current

might bluebottle confirm

[bluebottle]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

Without knowing the exact nature of what is concerning the OP, it is difficult to say whether it is a conflict of interest, a matter of professional competence or something more serious. Once the OP outlines the exact nature of his concerns, it should be easier to advise him accordingly.

[rickierich]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

Looked at the rules, and it is not really possible for me to have the lawyer removed for this reason. Due to the shared common interest. What I would also like is the rules and laws which make it possible for me to sue without fear of costs if I lose. In the past I took people to an employment tribunal, but had no fear of costs because I was seeking justice on a matter. I was told then of something that would mean that I would not have to pay costs if I quoted or stated this law or fact etc.
I have since completely forgotten it. Any help please thanks.

[miliitant]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

in an employment tribunal the judge will decided if costs are applicable prior to a hearing

he will decided if a claim is vexatious or without merit and state that the claimant is risking a cost order if he was to lose a tribunal

even then a depoit of £500 would be sugested

employment tribunals are different, they are not like a court of law, where as a civil court has full civil procedure rules and practice directions built in, all of which have a time element built in and can be claimed for

before instigating any civil claim you realy do need to get some serious advice on your options as it can turn around and bite you in the ass

[rickierich]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

I have never lost a civil case. Currently unemployed, so costs are irrelevant.

[miliitant]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

even if unemployed with a fee exemption,

if the judge considers the claim to be vexatious and you still persist a costs order will be made against the claimant if you lose

[rickierich]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

Yes but even with a cost order, you have no way of paying. So you then get an administration order the costs would be consolidated to a penny in the pound as a CCJ. So it is gone. Besides it is not vexatious, life is too short, for that.

[bluebottle]

Re: Defendant Lawyer recusal.

From what the OP says, they certainly appears to be a conflict of interest where the legal professional representing both Defendants is concerned. It will depend on the grounds upon which the OP is litigating against the two defendants that will determine whether the court needs to be informed or whether there is a conflict of interest or likelihood of a miscarriage of justice occurring.

The OP needs to more open in order for LBs to advise him. I'm sending a PM to him.