Solicitor coming off record

Status
Not open for further replies.
John joe said:
ok just to clarify some things for the posters here. The said solicitor is coming off my record due to the Law Society finding him guilty on my client account which subsequently lead to the solicitor having to return my money!!
Click to expand...

Has the Law Society demanded/insisted/ recommended that your solicitor come off record?

Or has your solicitor decided that they do not wish to act for you anymore? For whatever reason? Do you understand why this solicitor is coming off record?

And have you posted before in the thread Dachshund referred to? Is this the same set of circumstances?

mf
 
MF1 I have read the entire post , unlike you, who failed to read mine or ignore it or perhaps only heard a whizz when it flew above your head.


The LS will advise the solicitor to come off record , if he does not it is akin to a company Director trading recklessly. The LS may in this instance then seek to have the particular solicitor struck off so the emphasis is always protecting the client.

Dipping into clients funds was once an everyday occurrence but now it is something that the LS wish to stamp out, I am sure that JJ is not the only one who has discrepancies. Case Closed
Rumpole-Of-The-Bailey-Photograph-C11813697.jpeg

 
mf1 said:
Has the Law Society demanded/insisted/ recommended that your solicitor come off record?

Or has your solicitor decided that they do not wish to act for you anymore? For whatever reason? Do you understand why this solicitor is coming off record?

And have you posted before in the thread Dachshund referred to? Is this the same set of circumstances?

mf
Click to expand...

No, I have ask that he come off record. He wanted to hand it over to another solicitor and even set me up with a reference number and a solicitors name that I was to contact. However I knew what his tricks were, that he would be in a position to blackmail me whenever he had another solicitor working on the case he would therefore inform his friend solicitor about myslef contacting the Law Society.

Thing that has ****ed me off about my crooked solicitor is that previous to me contacting the Law Society, I wrote to him when i noticed decrepencies in my money account. I always believe in offering someone a chance which I did and has asked him about the "double charging" and failing to provide me with a section 68 letter. In his reply he immediately went on the defensive, got his back up and denied everything and said that he has now encountered further fees(At this stage I sensed blackmail). But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me. What rights did I have between myself and my solicitor? NONE. I mean why whenever you go to question someone about my own money that they get so defensive about it. It would have been in his best interest to admit to his dishonesty as it has now cost him over 7k. At the end of the day I win solicitor looses.
 
Hasslehoff said:
Dipping into clients funds was once an everyday occurrence but now it is something that the LS wish to stamp out, I am sure that JJ is not the only one who has discrepancies. Case Closed
Click to expand...

Don't tar all solicitors with the one brush. The Law Society have always been very strict when it comes to a solicitors client account. There are very stringent requirements for solicitors under their Accounts Regulations. The recent high profile cases don't represent the profession as a whole.
 
"But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me."

Sorry to be mean about this, but I simply don't believe this. My gut instinct is that:

1. The solicitor had money in his client account belonging to the OP and applied some or all of it toward fees and outlays without first getting agreement on the bill.

2. There was a dispute about fees charged.


3. The OP complained to the Law Society and the solicitor (having been lax in issuing S.68 letter and perhaps also not having been sufficiently up-front on the fees to be charged) took the pragmatic attitude that it was better to refund the fees and write off the whole thing to experience, rather than try to defend the charges.

If this is what happened, then it certainly falls short of good and acceptable practice, but it also falls well short of theft. If the client had money sitting there with the solicitor, and if it was not intended to be used to fund the costs of the case, it kinda begs the question as to why the money was left with the solicitor at all.

Regarding the original query, I am afraid I do not have an answer. The application to come off record is something the solicitor wants to do. It would not be normal to charge specifically for this as a stand-alone item. If I were coming off record, I would not bill the client for the cost of my application, and I cannot say if the solicitor is entitled to bill for it (I just don't know). But it would be normal for the solicitor to require that his fees to date be discharged. If the solicitor has done work for the client, he is entitled to be paid for it.
 
MOB said:
"But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me."

Sorry to be mean about this, but I simply don't believe this. My gut instinct is that:.
Click to expand...

His reply to the Law Society was "I regret the error" as stated in my previous post he have been already asked about the double charging before contacting the Law Society
[/quote]
1. The solicitor had money in his client account belonging to the OP and applied some or all of it toward fees and outlays without first getting agreement on the bill.
[/quote]
No the money had not been in my account until he had requested it under false pretences. He was charging me for court hearing fees twice and has sent out the same bill as I had previously paid two years previous. Talk about a dummy? huh
[/quote]
2. There was a dispute about fees charged.
[/quote]
yes there was I will pay for something once and not twice for the same thing

[/quote]
3. The OP complained to the Law Society and the solicitor (having been lax in issuing S.68 letter and perhaps also not having been sufficiently up-front on the fees to be charged) took the pragmatic attitude that it was better to refund the fees and write off the whole thing to experience, rather than try to defend the charges.
[/quote]
How could it be possible dispute something when he was clearly wrong. I had two bills for the same amount and both for court fees but with a date of two year difference between then. You can't argue black is white
[/quote]
If this is what happened, then it certainly falls short of good and acceptable practice, but it also falls well short of theft. If the client had money sitting there with the solicitor, and if it was not intended to be used to fund the costs of the case, it kinda begs the question as to why the money was left with the solicitor at all.
[/quote]
There was no money sitting in my account with the solicitor.
[/quote]
But it would be normal for the solicitor to require that his fees to date be discharged. If the solicitor has done work for the client, he is entitled to be paid for it.[/quote]
As stated in my previous post all outlays and fees where paid to date.

This solicitor has ****ed me off so much I no longer trust solicitors anymore therefore the reason I will be representing myself in future. Thanks for all replies and and will post back here after the outcome of coming off record in the high court.
 
I once had a bad pint myself. It was Smithwicks. I haven't had one since but i still drink pints of guinness or carlsberg or whatever.

Representing yourself is a brave move, good luck. If your case has merit you'd be far better off in the hands of a lawyer.
 
Case was heard in the High court yesterday. It turns out the solicitor has to pay the fees!
 
The Judge in the High Court has ruled that my crooked solicitor will have to appear before the High Court in person to hand the file over to myself as he cannot be trusted to just come off record and that I will have to go to his office to collect the file.
 
It is serious, but as the solicitor has not been identified, it doesn't matter.

I am closing the thread as it's finished and as John Joe is in breach of the guidelines in relation to bad language.

Brendan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top