Are Solicitors losing influence with their clients

Dr.Debt

Registered User
Messages
428
It crossed my mind today when reading some of the other threads that lots of people seem to be prepared to take on legal tasks on a DIY basis nowadays,rather than referring them to a Solicitor as used to be done of old

For example you hear about people
1) Doing their own wills
2) Taking out probate
3) Downloading templates of letting agreements
4) Avoiding litigation in the collection of debts
5) Researching legal matters on-line and getting "free answers"
6) Some are even starting to get involved in simple conveyancing
7) Some have taken to defending themselves in Court.

In many cases, I get the feeling that people are willing to take calculated legal risks with more minor matters to avoid legal costs OR to undertake legal tasks where they believe that Solicitors are not adding enough value.

As we all know, The number of property transactions has collapsed in recent years and professional indemnity premia have soared which makes me believe that lots of Solicitors must be under huge pressure to survive.

As a businessman, I come across a lot of Solicitors in my daily chores. A good solicitor with a commercial flair is worth his / her weight in gold.
However this type of Solicitor seems to be the exception rather than the rule and in very short supply. Many solicitors that I have come across in recent years seem to be stuck in a time warp, with limited ability and I often get a feeling that they are adding more cost than value to the tasks on hand.

As an example and not so long ago I came across a case where a landlord was desperately trying to let out a commercial premises. After two years lying vacant and on the market, a tenant was found and the basic terms were agreed. The landlord handed the matter over to his Solicitor and the Solicitor proceeded to "blow the deal". The Solicitor blew the deal by insisting on every sort of indemnity and insurance and onerous condition imaginable "to protect his clients interests" Now the Solicitor was actually doing a good job trying to protect his clients interests from a legal point of view but he failed to understand that there were 15 other premises for letting in the same park and anyone (except him) could see that there was a limit to what he was going to get from the new tenant before the deal would collapse. The deal did collapse and the prospective tenant is now renting the unit,next door. The unit in question still lies vacant today and the Landlord is in extreme financial straits. This is a typical case of what I have experienced with Solicitors in recent times. And to be fair, I can understand that the Solicitor might be trying to cover his rear end, by making sure that all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s crossed and making sure that the client doesn't come back to him later with a negligence claim.Presumably that is a huge part of the problem. The Solicitor may feel he has to take a certain approach even if it doesn't result in the best outcome for the client. It follows from this, rightly or wrongly, and some people are beginning to figure it out, you wont necessarily or always achieve the best outcome by engaging a Solicitor.

So whats my point ? My point is that Solicitors will have to add much more value to their clients overall interests in the future if they expect to earn a fee. The modern client is clearly much more demanding, much more educated and has easy access to legal resources on the internet. My feeling is that people have "wised up" and will only pay Solicitors now where real value is being added.
 
My point is that Solicitors will have to add much more value to their clients overall interests in the future if they expect to earn a fee. The modern client is clearly much more demanding, much more educated and has easy access to legal resources on the internet.

Much of the problem is that most solicitors do act in their clients best interests. There is a major failing in clients giving simple instructions. In the case you have mentioned the client should have told the legals to ease off rather than blaming the solicitor. It would not have been that difficult to place his instructions in writing.

The friend might be in Dire straits but the solicitor probably is as well. This downturn has not singled out any sector from this calamity. This is why the Irish nation will take so long to return to domestic growth.
 
Thanks Mercman.

The client in this particular example is an elderly Gent (71) who just handed the whole file to the Solicitor and would tell you frankly that he "doesn't understand these things" He just wanted the Solicitor to take care of it.
on his behalf. The Solicitor was 100% "empowered". so to speak.
 
A very interesting and thought provoking post. I would agree with you for the most part.
There are certain things where only a solicitor will do, e.g. conveyancing. Also the PRA is very reluctant to deal with lay people which makes using a solicitor a necessity.

There are also certain areas that solicitors will not touch with a bargepole. Debt cases for example. You will not find a solicitor willing to represent a debtor in a bank debt case for fear they would not get any more work from the banks. A visit to any district court will show you that getting instalment orders for banks is now the staple of the average solicitor with debtors appearing by themselves or with lay advisor's such as myself for support. Many of the people I see do not have the funds to pay a solicitor and the legal aid board will not give funds for such cases. As I said earlier you would be hard pressed to find someone who has no vested interest that is willing to represent you.

People are doing their own thing these days and I don't blame them. You can find precedent copies of forms online. You can prepare your own summonses easily. The one thing I will say is that the court clerks are very helpful and understanding in dealing with lay litigants.

There was a time people would be afraid of a solicitors letter. Not anymore. Solicitors don't instil the fear they once had. I knows a fellow that lights his fire with solicitors letters. They not just losing influence with clients they are losing influence in general.
 
The public for the most part have unprecedented access to information and methods of how to do things.
Agree with you on a good solicitor is worth their weight in gold - but that can be said about most professions.
As Time said 'court clerks are very helpful and understanding in dealing with lay litigants'.
A good chunk of solicitor work is easier than it is made out to be.

People are willing to learn, now more so than ever with money being so tight.
They also became very fond of charging a percentage of the value of the work as opposed to the work involved.
And let's be honest here. They got paid a lot of money for doing very little (for certain things).
That has changed for sure!
Who can blame people for self educating themselves and dealing with it?
But it is very much a young persons game. Not many elderly folks are that savvy in researching legal things.
It would be fair to say that there are a few things in the world that a solicitor is not 100% necessary for.
 
the whole file to the Solicitor and would tell you frankly that he "doesn't understand these things" He just wanted the Solicitor to take care of it.

Without my being rude, why did he purchase the property in the first instance ?
He might be best to leave his property matters to a decent estate agent who will do the negotiations with any perspective tenants and with solicitors as well.

Hope this isn't a case of 'Penny Wise, Pound foolish'
 
Mercman,Thats an interesting point of view. You think that a person who knows nothing about law shouldnt buy property ?? I think the landlord's view would be "that's why I engage a Solicitor" By the way he had a top firm of Estate Agents on the job as well. I heard about this case from the landlord's son. I understand that when the next tenant comes along, the son will handle it himself and there will be no Solicitor. I dont know if thats right or wrong but that is the situation.
 
1) Doing their own wills
2) Taking out probate
3) Downloading templates of letting agreements
4) Avoiding litigation in the collection of debts
5) Researching legal matters on-line and getting "free answers"
6) Some are even starting to get involved in simple conveyancing
7) Some have taken to defending themselves in Court.

.

I don't think anyone should do their own will no matter how simple.

Probate is a different matter. But that too depends. Personally I'd prefer not to do it, would depend on the cost versus my time.

In relation to letting agreements, as a landlord myself I've never seen any point in them. It might be different for commercial leases, but if I were involved in that area no doubt I'd have researched it and would know exactly what to do if I were the owner of a commercial premises and it would be me instructing my solicitor, with his advice on what was needed. From the example you gave in a distressed rental market the landlord should have been on the ball and willing to jump hoops to get the tenant, with no lease if necessary.

The problem with debts is not the solicitor, it's that the costs of taking a case are not worthwhile - that's a problem with the court system and requires a change in legislation, something along the lines of the small claims court. There was an excellent poster on here who made it his business to personally learn how to go to court and take on debtors. That's what I would too if I were a businessman who needed to recoup monies. And too often people can blame their solicitor if they don't succeed because people fail to understand that you can win in court but still not get paid. That's not the solicitors fault.

Researching legal matters on line is all very well and good, and you can learn a lot, but for anything a bit tricky you cannot beat competent and good legal advice. In all of life this holds true and in my case I've an excellent solicitor and accountant who have never but given me proper professional advice. But you have to be willing to pay for it and no you don't need the big law firms in Dublin or the big 4 accountancy firms - I think they are to be avoided at all costs unless you are Sean Quinn/Paddy McKillen/Sean Dunne etc. And even then you as a client can be your own worst enemy (Sean Quinn and the Juries out on McKillen).

Conveyancing, this cannot be done by oneself if there is a mortgage as far as I know. And who would want to risk it going wrong. My goodness this is a very serious matter and involves a great deal of money.

Defending oneself in court. Look at Brian O' Donnell, one of the top top Irish solicitors and his story is a case study in the old saying, a solicitor who represents himself has a fool for a client (I haven't got the words exactly right on that, but you get the gist). It's ok to defend onself for say TV licence, but I think paying a solicitor a couple of hundred for a traffic office is money well spent. And for those who have no money, they are very brave souls who have to go into court and I admire them greatly. Court is to be avoided if at all possible. And there is something wrong when middle class people cannot seek to vindicate their rights because of costs. But we have a closed shop system and that too is a matter for Mr. Alan Shatter, and the next minister and the next......

The above is not a justification of solicitors by the way because I've plenty of very bad things to say about a certain number of them and I think the self regulation and cover ups has to change, for the good of the professional solicitors and society in general. Same with a lot of professionals really.
 
I think Solicitors have overcharged for years and are being dragged screaming into reality. Two years ago I got a quote for Probate from a solicitor for an estate valued at 650k. I was quoted 18k inc vat! ( I asked for his best price and he immediately dropped price to 9.5k including vat which which alarmed me.

I proceeded to carry out probate myself, which was quiet easy for approx 1k. I try everything myself now if possible.
 
So the solicitor is now in a position of 'Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't'. There is no point in attributing blame to the legal team alone. Where was the top brass of Estate Agents whilst this was going on ?? And I never said that persons purchasing property shouldn't buy property. However that is exactly what happened in this country. The free and easy road to credit has left many people in the hands of the vultures (the Banks). And we all know what they have done to the vulnerable !!
 
I think Solicitors have overcharged for years and are being dragged screaming into reality. Two years ago I got a quote for Probate from a solicitor for an estate valued at 650k. I was quoted 18k inc vat! ( I asked for his best price and he immediately dropped price to 9.5k including vat which which alarmed me.

I proceeded to carry out probate myself, which was quiet easy for approx 1k. I try everything myself now if possible.

Unbeliveable form 18K to 9.5K. Of course all the solicitor saw was the 650K and based his price on that. So his calculation was about 3% and then reduced it to about 1.5%. Of course I assume that probates are stilll the big money spinners that's why wills are so cheap to make.

Well done you fender on your outcome.
 
I think Solicitors have overcharged for years

Eh Wakey Wakey. They still are. The only reason why the big firms choose corporate work is they are able to charge massive money for the work they do.

As a form of reminder has anyone tried to change solicitors ?? A painful exercise but for Private Clients 'He Who dares....... Wins'
 
I think the main problem is that the world has changed and the legal profession has remained the same.

With all the information available, most clients have a much better understanding of what Solicitors actually do. The mystique is gone and younger people are much better informed.

I think most people would be happy to pay top bucks to a Solicitor who is working on complex and demanding legal tasks in banking, insurance, government etc, however they are no longer willing to pay over the odds for straight forward mundane matters like those listed above.

I think we need to take the queue from places like Canada and the USA who have well developed paralegal frameworks in place. Paralegals take care of property transactions,wills, probates and are allowed to take cases to the lower courts. They charge a much lower fee. Lawyers get involved in complex legal matters and are paid on a much higher scale.

Our problem in this country is that we have a lot of Solicitors charging top money for the lower level work. People are not buying it anymore. Surely Solicitors did not spend five or six years of legal training to assist clients with minor motor traffic offences or speeding fines or installment orders which appears to be what a lot of small practice Solicitors are occupying themselves with, in this country.
 
I think the main problem is that the world has changed and the legal profession has remained the same..

100% correct.

But in the case of this thread, the OP is implying that the solicitors have acted on there own and scuppered the deal. From dealing with the biggest and smallest of law firms, I have to see any of them go off on a tangent and do their own thing.

In fact I know of many cases where the solicitors have not done enough, but never too much.
 
How is this an 'askaboutlaw' thread? I would think it should be in Letting off Steam, where it belongs.

The title could easily be changed to 'Are professionals losing influence with their clients?'

A little googling will bring you information or misinformation on any number of issues- tax, law, planning, accounting, medical matters etc etc. Every one of these professions faces the same issue- clients who do a little googling or talk to the man on the next barstool and think they know as much about something as their adviser- and in every one of these professions there are good and bad people. The vast majority of clients in solicitors offices are given good advice and good service otherwise the business would simply fold. But you never hear about the happy clients, just the disgruntled ones.

As for not changing- the law changes constantly and if anyone thinks the solicitors profession has not changed over the last number of decades, they are mistaken.

As for the OP's example- a feeling of deja vu came over me when I read it- I believe it has been posted as an example before on AAM. Beyond the people actually involved, no one really knows the truth of that situation but it shows the solicitor was not in a race to the bottom as has been the situation too many times in the property bubble- just because other landlords conceded indemnities/insurance in order to grab a tenant doesnt mean they were right to do so.
 
Vanilla, This does not appear to be a a letting off steam thread to me. Its a genuine question about how well
Solicitors are serving their clients.

Regarding your comment "- just because other landlords conceded indemnities/insurance in order to grab a tenant doesnt mean they were right to do so"

I think I would prefer a lease that was less than ideal and had rent coming in over one that was "right" but couldnt attract a tenant. But I think thats one of the main points of this thread and I think its interesting that you have made that same point again yourself.
 
I think I would prefer a lease that was less than ideal and had rent coming in over one that was "right" but couldnt attract a tenant. But I think thats one of the main points of this thread and I think its interesting that you have made that point again yourself.

So you would prefer to be exposed to claims in relation to the premises even though they should be the responsibility of the tenant? You would prefer that the tenant was not forced to take out insurance in relation to the premises?

The reality is of course that had the solicitor allowed that, and had his client been exposed to a large compensation claim, that the solicitor would be sued for professional negligence where the client is considered vulnerable and had handed over responsibility to the solicitor. In fact the example cited is the antithesis of the thread title- in that example, the client took the solicitors advice because at the end of the day, the client instructs, the solicitor merely advises.
 
Im not sure we should get too bogged down with the one example.........

As I understand it the main problem was not Insurance which is a perfectly acceptable request in this type of lease. There were other indemnities sought, Personal Guarantees, Trade References, Bank References, Previous landlord references. My contact believed that the Solicitor had plenty of time on his hands and was making a "complete breakfast" out of it.
 
Personal guarantee- the tenant must have been a company. No personal guarantee, tenant can walk away scot free from all debts and hide behind the corporate veil.

References- who wouldn't want references? Why wouldn't you supply them?

Not exactly onerous. But yeah, lets not get bogged down with specific examples. Lets generalise.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top