Solicitor does not want to represent me

Jim Jonews

Registered User
Messages
29
I had an accident and had an insurance claim settled recently but my solicitor took over €6,000 from the settlement cheque. I found out later that this was wrong and threatened to make a complaint to the Law Society. This did the trick after a number of letters over 7 months and I finally got a complete refund when I gave her 7 days notice.
However, she is now saying that she no longer wants to represent my 11 year old son for an insurance claim due to the same accident. Other than her over-charging, I was happy with the rest of her work. Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?
The main resaon I would like to retain her is that everything is now much more complicated as my wife and I are separated (believe me when I say "complicated"!).
The Law Society have told me that they "wish to advise that we are unable to assist you with your query, as the Society does not provide legal advice". They have also suggested that I contact the court, who have told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit but they are unable to tell me where these rules or regulations are so I cannot quote them.
 
She does not want to act for you/your son. She is not obliged to do so. She should formally notify you of this and advise you of your options i.e. instruct another firm to take over the file and for you to discharge the costs to date or formally "come off record".

mf
 
I believe that it is standard practice where a client has complained to the law society about their solicitor that the solicitor will come off record and wash their hands of the matter or matters pertaining to the client.
 
I believe that it is standard practice where a client has complained to the law society about their solicitor that the solicitor will come off record and wash their hands of the matter or matters pertaining to the client.

Do you blame them? We only have one side of the story here.

mf
 
I had an accident and had an insurance claim settled recently but my solicitor took over €6,000 from the settlement cheque. I found out later that this was wrong
What exactly do you mean?
and I finally got a complete refund
Why was she not entitled to some payment?
Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?
Sounds like she can and she is not. In which case you need to get any loose ends with regard to her withdrawal from the case sorted out and get a new solicitor I guess?
 
Don’t worry,Clubman, she told me that she got paid her full costs but then took the extra €6K when the cheque arrived, despite section 68 (3) of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994 which states that:
“A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor”. By taking the €6K, she was getting paid twice. I became aware of this when I heard that it happened to a good number of soldiers who had deafness claims following their time in the army.
The Law Society suggested that I contact the court, who has told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit. Is this correct?
 
If she just took 6k from you and she wasn't entitled to it, isn't that a criminal matter?

I understand what it's like being in "complicated" legal messes OP. It's very frustrating and the Law Society are as good as useless. I have learned quickly that you hold on to a good solicitor if you find one.

I wouldn't mind if we abandoned Common Law altogether and adopted Civil Law.
 
The matter is not at all as presented by the OP. The section of the Solicitors Amendment Act cited, when read with the following sections, in essence provides that there can be no deduction for legal charges from a compensation cheque without prior agreement in writing. That is as it should be, and if the solicitor concerned did not have prior agreement then she was indeed in the wrong. But it is completely misleading to suggest that there are no circumstances in which such deductions would be appropriate. They are often quite appropriate.
 
Could someone list such deductions? Esp in view of the fact that the settlement included costs?
 
MOB says that if the solicitor concerned did not have prior agreement then she was indeed in the wrong then goes on to say that it is completely misleading to suggest that there are no circumstances in which such deductions would be appropriate. I made no such suggestion.
I would like to add that Section 68.—(1) states that
“On the taking of instructions to provide legal services to a client, or as soon as is practicable thereafter, a solicitor shall provide the client with particulars in writing of—( a ) the actual charges, or ( b ) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, an estimate (as near as may be) of the charges, or( c ) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges or an estimate of such charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, the basis on which the charges are to be made. Basically, a solicitor should inform a client IN WRITING of the actual charges, an estimate of the charges or the basis on which the charges are to be made. This did not happen. It was, indeed, a criminal matter. She took €6K of mine that wasn’t hers but I gather it happens quite regularly. If I was wrong, she would not have given it back.

However, this is beside the point, which is can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation? Does she have to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit? I am unable to verify these rules or regulations and so I cannot quote them to her
 
"However, this is beside the point, which is can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation? "

She can come off record. If another solicitor does not take over the case, she will apply to the court, and this will be by Notice of Motion.

I have a real difficulty with the idea that anyone could simultaneously believe their solicitor was a cheat and still want that solicitor to represent them (or their child). Something here simply does not add up. I don't think the court will entertain this sort of hair splitting.

Her application to come off record will certainly be granted in circumstances where her client's father (who instructed her) does not trust her.

"She took €6K of mine that wasn’t hers" - quite possibly true; we don't have the full facts so it is impossible to say.

"but I gather it happens quite regularly." - certainly not true

"If I was wrong, she would not have given it back." - certainly not true: no solicitor wants a Law Society complaint. Waiving a fee or part of a fee - even if properly due - is often an easier way to deal with the matter than having to put up a detailed defence.


There is a perception out there that solicitor's charges which involve a deduction from the 'compensation cheque' are always inappropriate. This perception is completely wrong. Of course, there was in the past in some quarters of the legal profession a perception that such a deduction was always appropriate. That perception was equally wrong, and has been very effectively stamped out by the Law Society. It is not surprising that the OP might not understand this: many people have ill-informed views on the matter. Anyone who has in interest in this could usefully read the Court's comments about the publicly reported utterances of Carmel Foley (Director of Consumer Affairs) in a High Court judgment at the following link.

[broken link removed]

For those who want an executive summary (on this particular aspect - the case itself dealt with other issues):

Carmel Foley quote in Irish Independent as to her reason for calling an 'emergency meeting' of Law Society: ".....nothing less than scandalous if solicitors are taking money over and above the fees which they are getting...." (The headline in this case was "double-charging abuse case solicitors may be struck off")

The High Court view: "No qualifications were offered....[by Foley].. to meet circumstances in which... [a deduction\extra charge].. would be entirely lawful" and "whatever the motivation, her judgment...was both inappropriate and unwise".

I am sorry for such a long-winded post. My reason for doing so is that there are many people out there who have had compensation claims dealt with by solicitors, and many of them have had deductions from their compensation cheque. If this has happened to you, it does not mean that you were cheated (it is of course possible that you were - but don't jump to this conclusion).
 
MOB;589903I said:
have a real difficulty with the idea that anyone could simultaneously believe their solicitor was a cheat and still want that solicitor to represent them (or their child).

Can't understand this either. If I thought someone had helped to themselves to €6000 of my money that they weren't entitled to, there is no way they would be representing me or anyone I knew again.
 
OP the solicitor does not want to represent your son anymore as there is now bad blood between you. I imagine you "threatening to" and actually contacting the law society etc would mean that she no longer feels she is the best person to act in your son's interests. What I cannot understand is why you would want someone you say has taken money off you to represent your son. To answer your second point, you have found out from the courts that a certain document needs to be sent in. So you need to find a new solicitor to act for you and get the file from your old solicitor.
 
Below is an extract from the Courts Service website and may assist in explaining about costs. Specifically why if you are awarded costs in a successful action, you may still have additional costs to pay to your solicitor.

People confuse their solicitors with some kind of "treasure chest" in a way they don't with other professionals. If you have your accountant do your accounts, you expect to pay. If you engage a solicitor to represent you in a Court action, you don't expect to pay them - you expect someone else to. In many cases, where your client, the Plaintiff, successfully sues a Defendant and obtains an order for costs and those costs are easily recoverable from the Defendant, it may well be that those costs paid cover all the costs associated with the case. In many cases, they don't or while an Order has been made, the Defendant cannot pay them.

The client is always primarily responsible for all their Solicitors costs - they may get an indemnity from the Defendant for some or all of those costs which may offset the responsibility but that responsibility is always there.

I think the whole Personal Injuries Costs Syndrome was something that skewed people’s logic/rational way of thinking. I don’t do much P I work – I know that there are lots of perfectly legitimate claimants out there ( I act for some of them) but equally I’ve come across many people who believe they have an entitlement to a windfall for any form of minor inconvenience/bruising, and they inflate and exaggerate their claim without any shame. Add that to the Greedy Lawyers who actively encouraged claims (Army Deafness being the classic) and you can understand why clients don’t think going to Court should ever cost them anything. Contrast that though with a Boundary Dispute between neighbours ( possibly your worst possible case) both of whom are behaving badly and you can more clearly understand why ( a) they may both be ordered to pay their own costs or (b) a proportion of the other sides.

The party claiming costs - usually the successful Plaintiff or Defendant, must demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Taxing Master that such costs as are incurred were proper and reasonable in all the circumstances. The Taxing Master is guided by wide experience, gained by a professional background as a solicitor and in taxing costs.

Categories of costs

There are two main categories of costs;

(i) Party and Party Costs, and

(ii) Solicitor and Client Costs

Party and Party costs:
Party and Party costs cover all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by one party for the purposes of the relevant proceedings which the other side is obliged to pay. There may be costs in an action that are not allowable as Party and Party costs. The party claiming costs must justify why they were incurred and why those costs should be allowed. The Party and Party Costs may not cover the whole of the costs incurred in an action and the courts have held that:-

In costs between party and party one does not get full indemnity for costs incurred against the other. The principle to be considered in relation to party and party costs is that you are bound in the conduct of your case to have regard to the fact that your adversary may in the end have to pay your costs. You cannot indulge in a 'luxury of payment'.

All such costs, charges and expenses which appear to the Taxing Master to be necessary and proper in pursuit of the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of a person are essentially allowable costs.

Solicitor and client costs:
Solicitor and client costs are those costs that a client is obliged to pay his solicitor which are not recoverable under Party and Party costs.

The courts have held that the following distinction is made between Party and Party and Solicitor and Client costs in an action:-

"The costs of the Plaintiff as against the party do not mean all the costs he has incurred but all the costs he has incurred by the act of the defendant. That is the difference between party and party and solicitor and client costs - e.g.. it may be reasonable to have several consultations but it does not follow he is to get them all against the party."

Bills of costs
Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides for charges to clients. Under these provisions a solicitor should furnish a detailed statement of all the legal costs to his client. This statement of costs should contain:-

(a) a summary of the legal services provided;

(b) the total amount of damages received or other monies recovered;

(c) details of all the charges incurred and the nature of same.

Generally at the conclusion of the business or by arrangement with the client the solicitor will produce a detailed statement of costs and this is known as a Bill of Costs.

Generally, before making any payment for costs, the client has a right to have his costs taxed. At the conclusion of the taxation there is a duty imposed upon the amount of costs allowed by the Taxing Master - fees are set out in the Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order. However, in Solicitor and Client taxations, if more than one sixth of the amount claimed is disallowed, the client may not be liable for this duty, otherwise this duty is payable by the Solicitor who presents the Bill of Costs.
 
OK MF1 I'm printing that out and in about a year's time when I've figured it out I'll let you know if I have any questions. :confused: Normally you write so clearly - I gave up about half way through. How is an ordinary person supposed to understand how much they will have to pay with that? No wonder we have so many people on AAM confused about fees :(
 
Could give an example of Solicitor and client costs that are not recoverable from a loosing party?
 
Back
Top