| Legal advice 00:18 - Mar 16 with 786 views | bosh67 |
I was aware that legal communications had to be written by a lawyer stating that 'their client has instructed them to...' etc etc
My dad is constantly on the end of relatively abusive emails where lawyers allegedly acting for a client are saying 'we take the view' and 'we will seek our client's instruction'. Everything is from the lawyers POV, not their clients'.
Does anyone with knowledge of the Solicitors Regulation Authority codes know if this is an acceptable or even legal way to communicate? In this case we believe that the lawyers are actually leading their client, or even bullying them into trying to take action against my dad (they also represent a body of charities in this case as well as the clients, who are executors). It's been going on for 4 years now and we keep getting threatened directly by lawyers rather than their actual client.
Anyone care to enlighten me, I would be grateful. It's absolute hell for my dad, he's done nothing wrong. It just feels that the lawyers are leading the clients rather than being instructed by them. |  |
| |  |
| Legal advice on 00:32 - Mar 16 with 761 views | Brightonhoop |
It's classic Lawyer account plunder. No idea where the boundaries lay between client led and lawyer led letters etc but there is a boundary now on stalking.
I would suggest a private conversation if possible with Professor Rideout, retired of UCL. |  | | |
| Legal advice on 07:47 - Mar 16 with 660 views | DWQPR |
Lawyers are sh1t stirring thieving low life who should be properly regulated and not by the Law Society, which is nothing more than a gentlemans club. They try and generate as much grief as they can, the more grief, the more time, the more hey get paid. If anybody has to use one of these vermin agree a 'project fee' up front rather than their hourly charge. Suddenly they get the job done. |  |
| |
| Legal advice on 08:37 - Mar 16 with 629 views | bosh67 |
Many thanks for the lead. Do you have any idea where I can get hold of Professor Rideout? | |
| |
| Legal advice on 09:05 - Mar 16 with 596 views | TGRRRSSS |
Do you know who these clients are, do you know what the complaints are about and is it different lawyers/lawfirms. You can investigate them google search speak also with Law Society themselves and lodge complaints with anyone you see fit, also might be worth suggesting (if it's small fry firms) you'll go to their local press and name names, or bigger papers who might be interested. I think there is a Law OMbudsman of some sort as well.
Possibly worth invesitgating the harrassment angle with the police but this maybe difficult as it seems to be a "civil" matter and the police are notoriously lazy in such things and tend not to want to get involved, if however you can prove harrassment you could get the firm/lawyers in serious trouble which they would be in danger career wise.
But the real thing is to find out who is behind this, lawyers don't tend to do things without getting paid for them, so someone is behind this and you need to really find out who and why.
However the fact you've had four years worth of letters suggests nobody is actually actioning things.
Might be worth trying to find any legal Bod rangers fans either here or on twitter who might have a casual look for you. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| Legal advice on 09:15 - Mar 16 with 586 views | TGRRRSSS |
Too add to my previous post is this only emails your getting and nothing in hard writing via a means of a letter?
If this is the case then I doubt that any respectable law firm would communicate in this way, and whilst we will take clients instruction it's pretty unlikely they'd use a phrase like "we take the view"
Its very unlikely they'd write something like that in this context it isn't for them to tell you what view they take it's only for them to say that to their client.
For instance I go to Lawyer about being sacked. I tell him reasons he says to me an early view of my grievance - I take the view TGRRRSSS that.
Unlikely he'd write that in a lettrer to the employers. But if he did they'd know who was going after them and why which doesn't seem to be the case here. | | | |
| Legal advice on 10:02 - Mar 16 with 554 views | pomanjou |
Stuff like this I usually put in the bin.
If its been going on for four years without actual action I think it tells its own story.
If a client wnats to take action they would normally consult a solicitor who would advise the legal position and if appropriate agree a course of action. The solicitor would then carry it out on behalf of the client, keeping them updated at all times with copies of correrspondence etc. The solicitor in the first instance would write to your Dad along the lines of 'we have been instructed to" etc etc which is very different to "we will seek our clients instruction".
To put his mind at rest treat him to a quick interview with a local solicitor to review the papers (you may even find one who does this for free) or go to the Citizens Advice for a view. With four years on the clock there is no urgency.
For his own peace of mind.
I am not a solicitor but have dealt with them from the bottom to the top of the pile. I am expert in nowt. |  |
| |
| Legal advice on 10:05 - Mar 16 with 547 views | bosh67 |
Thanks for all you help and advice, which is very much appreciated. If anyone is a lawyer here, and I've asked Seven if he's still around, then I would still appreciate a lawyer's thoughts on the 'we will seek' rather than 'our client will seek' issue. Many thanks. | |
| |
| Legal advice on 10:12 - Mar 16 with 538 views | Brightonhoop |
UXL may pass on a letter to professor Rideout, otherwise i'm not sure how to contact him.
TGRsis right, it's odd it has gone on for four years without any action in the form of court summons. Depending on how confident you are they are not avout to summons, you could call their bluff quoting the Malicious Communications Act, state that you alarmed and distressed by the ongoing Harrassment, attribute the actions to health where possible, and threaten that unless they issue a Summons within 28 days with no other communications meanwhile, that you will be forced to take out a restraining Order to prevent ongoing Stalking and Harrassment.
If they do summons, go for the restraining Order then counter sue. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal advice on 10:27 - Mar 16 with 515 views | bosh67 |
Thanks everyone. The Malicious Communications Act certainly fits into what's being done to my dad, so I will investigate that more fully. Thanks. | |
| |
| Legal advice on 11:05 - Mar 16 with 476 views | RickyDicky |
Shut down the email address and if they are serious, they'll have write. Emails will bounce back. Set up a new email addy and advise friends of new email. |  |
| |
| Legal advice on 22:07 - Mar 16 with 363 views | TGRRRSSS |
bumped this in case sevenhoop sees ot or maybe nico lurks? | | | |
| Legal advice on 22:20 - Mar 16 with 347 views | sevenhoop |
Hi Bosh. Sorry, been too depressed since the drive home. Still cannot believe that result. I never let footie get me down too much (there are much more important things in life, as we're - especially as you get older - all reminded regularly..
Will email you but no solicitor will ever write without client's instructions, it's rule 1. If you do, you can get slaughtered by your client and the SRA. Your case, however, has very particular complications.
By the way DW, ever thought you might be guilty of over-generalising a touch? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| Legal advice on 11:58 - Mar 17 with 268 views | scot1963 |
| Legal advice on 22:20 - Mar 16 by sevenhoop |
Hi Bosh. Sorry, been too depressed since the drive home. Still cannot believe that result. I never let footie get me down too much (there are much more important things in life, as we're - especially as you get older - all reminded regularly..
Will email you but no solicitor will ever write without client's instructions, it's rule 1. If you do, you can get slaughtered by your client and the SRA. Your case, however, has very particular complications.
By the way DW, ever thought you might be guilty of over-generalising a touch? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
+1 on the points mentioned in all paragraphs |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
