Jim Stafford
Registered User
- Messages
- 631
did ACC/Cabot make reasonable, frequent steps after the judgement to try to enforce it?
I thought barristers were prohibited from engaging directly with clients, only through solicitors.I sought (privately) advice from a Barrister, specialising in the area of Judgement Mortgages, due to engagement up to 2013, the statue of limitations (despite original judgement on the personal debt 2009) expires technically in 2025.
If you read my post again, you'll notice, Barrister was consulted on my behalf, through my Solicitor, I made no direct contact with the BARRISTER, only recieved a copy of his written opinion. I did however pay the barrister directly, my Solicitor didn't charge me any fee.I thought barristers were prohibited from engaging directly with clients, only through solicitors.
I know this because I tried a direct approach once and was refused by several barristers!
That's VERY unusual. At various points in my career, I commissioned barristers to provide advice and representation. It was ALWAYS done through our solicitor, and the barristers fee notes were always directed to the solicitor who duly incorporated it into his own bill...... I did however pay the barrister directly, my Solicitor didn't charge me any fee.
Have you actually read my posts on this matter, as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly, my Solicitor did on my behalf. I'm not at all sure why at times people rush to question a post as if to find something 'unusual " and then respond having clearly not read the actual OP.That's VERY unusual. At various points in my career, I commissioned barristers to provide advice and representation. It was ALWAYS done through our solicitor, and the barristers fee notes were always directed to the solicitor who duly incorporated it into his own bill.
IIRC, there was also a historical thing that barristers can't legally sue a client for an unpaid bill, and the tardiness of solicitors in passing on payment to barristers is regularly, ahem, discussed between the Bar Council and the Law Society.
Your first post implied that you did.Have you actually read my posts on this matter, as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly,
I sought (privately) advice from a Barrister,
Yes, I tend to read posts before replying to them. It's a useful discipline. I'd recommend it.Have you actually read my posts on this matter,
Yeah, I got that.as I've explained twice, now, I did not engage a Barrister directly, my Solicitor did on my behalf.
Because a client paying a barrister directly is VERY unusual. I know this from long experience having engaged barristers for my former employer on dozens of occasions.I'm not at all sure why at times people rush to question a post as if to find something 'unusual "
At the risk of repeating myself, sadly necessary because of your failure to comprehend (or perhaps even read) some straightforward posts, I did not question the manner in which you engaged the barrister. (Standard referral through solicitor.) I simply pointed out that it is unusual for a client to pay a barrister directly. Even your own post shows that the barrister billed the solicitor, as barristers always do.ankd then respond having clearly not read the actual OP.
Ok, that's an unusual way for a solicitor to do things. Doubtless your solicitor had a good reason. Perhaps unrelated to your own case.So again, my Solicitor consulted the Barrister, I recieved written opinion and on receipt of same, paid the Barrister directly as requested to by my solicitor who waived his fee on the matter.
I'm just saying it's unusual. We have established that the payment arrangement was at the solicitor's request and that the barrister's fee note went to the solicitor in the normal manner.I'll attach a redacted letter from my excellent solicitor advising payment directly to Barristers account if your still in any doubt
Whatever.and I might add, I have furnished details of said Barrister privately via PM to another poster and reiterating it will require referral through a solicitor.
It's background to the tradition of how barristers get paid. If you can't figure out any possible relevance that could explain a lot.Re Barrister not being able to sue a solicitor for unpaid bills, I'm not entirely sure what your getting at but that point not at all relevant.
Privately as in this issue was not mentioned, dealt with, discussed with or form part of any communication I had with VF who purchased my mortgage from original mortgage provider, the word Privately was NOT intended to infer I consultanted a Barrister directly but I sought legal advice privately as part of the process to assertain my options and as explained through my Solicitor (privately)Your first post implied that you did.
I'm not at all sure what your problem is, perhaps it's my reminder of the importance of actually reading posts before making glib comments.Yes, I tend to read posts before replying to them. It's a useful discipline. I'd recommend it.
Yeah, I got that.
Because a client paying a barrister directly is VERY unusual. I know this from long experience having engaged barristers for my former employer on dozens of occasions.
At the risk of repeating myself, sadly necessary because of your failure to comprehend (or perhaps even read) some straightforward posts, I did not question the manner in which you engaged the barrister. (Standard referral through solicitor.) I simply pointed out that it is unusual for a client to pay a barrister directly. Even your own post shows that the barrister billed the solicitor, as barristers always do.
Ok, that's an unusual way for a solicitor to do things. Doubtless your solicitor had a good reason. Perhaps unrelated to your own case.
I'm just saying it's unusual. We have established that the payment arrangement was at the solicitor's request and that the barrister's fee note went to the solicitor in the normal manner.
Whatever.
It's background to the tradition of how barristers get paid. If you can't figure out any possible relevance that could explain a lot.
That's a relief!!!I'm not at all sure what your problem is, perhaps it's my reminder of the importance of actually reading posts before making glib comments.
I've, perhaps annoyed you at clarifying matters, so be it. Why your deflecting from the actual topic is beyond me but I won't be engaging further with you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?