Problems with the Legal Profession

Eoin

I can see why the last two posters are annoyed with some of the comments made, but I still think other points have been made that are not ignorant and deserve more than being dismissed as whinging.

I said earlier that solicitors carry out a task that the average punter certainly can't. I think that most people recognise that. A lot of people may not recognise however, that most of the delays or hurdles faces are probably not due to the solicitor, but to the legal system itself. This is where it is the solicitor's responsibility to explain this to the customer, rather than just remain incommunicado until it suits them. This does seem to be a common problem with solicitors, and I think this point does not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

Maximilian

eoin_s wrote:

I can see why the last two posters are annoyed with some of the comments made, but I still think other points have been made that are not ignorant and deserve more than being dismissed as whinging.

I said earlier that solicitors carry out a task that the average punter certainly can't. I think that most people recognise that. A lot of people may not recognise however, that most of the delays or hurdles faces are probably not due to the solicitor, but to the legal system itself. This is where it is the solicitor's responsibility to explain this to the customer, rather than just remain incommunicado until it suits them. This does seem to be a common problem with solicitors, and I think this point does not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

I was making a general comment.

If you start explaining everything to clients, you risk overloading them with information. Also, clients need to ask questions too. A lot of them don't.

You make a fair point though. I think things in this regard are changing for the better though. A lot of firms are focusing more on customer service than ever before, mainly I think due to increased competition.

MrPudding

Maximilian wrote:

If you start explaining everything to clients, you risk overloading them with information. Also, clients need to ask questions too. A lot of them don't.

You make a fair point though. I think things in this regard are changing for the better though. A lot of firms are focusing more on customer service than ever before, mainly I think due to increased competition.

OK, this kind of makes sense but what is the excuse for not returning repeated calls?

I do understand what you are saying and I am sure it must be verry annoying to be painted with the same brush as your less commited colleagues but at the same time it is kind of offensive to dismiss peoples complaints as whining.

MrP

Maximilian

Well, the fact is that there is no excuse for not returning phone calls but the timeframe is important. If you expect a phone call to be returned immediately or even on the same day sometimes, that can be a little unrealistic. 24 hours would be acceptable in my opinion. If the matter is urgent, well it should be returned asap.

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

If you start explaining everything to clients, you risk overloading them with information. Also, clients need to ask questions too. A lot of them don't.

All the more reason to give clients the information especially when they dont ask

Maximilian

Yes but how much information should you get. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. What kind of information are you talking about?

For example, if you were buying a house, I could go through every single general condition in the contract and explain every possible outcome to every problem which could arise. You can guess how long that would take. How much would you remember anyway?

Specific issues relevant to any case or transaction should of course be explained but if a client has certain concerns, yet doesn't express them how is the solicitor supposed to know if they are not otherwise apparant? We can only work on information given to us. For example, Lets say a particular item of furniture is as far as the client is concerned included in the sale price, yet is not referred to in the contract and the client doesn't bring this matter to his solicitor's attention. Later there is a problem. A lot of the time, you will find the solicitor gets blamed.

If a problem arises in a transaction, the first person to know is the client and the reasons are explained and advices are given by the solicitor. This is a basic function of the job and I think it would be incorrect to say that anything other than a small minority of solicitors would not do this in a timely fashion.

muffler

Ive just been reading the posts by Maximilan and murphym5 and first of all I think its great that 2 solicitors are prepared to join in the debate here even though they are defending their own profession. But thats what the boards are about - getting healthy and balanced views from all parts of the spectrum.

I dont have an axe to grind with any individual solicitor but I have to say that the legal profession in general here in Donegal is nothing short of disgraceful. My work involves contact with solicitors on a regular basis and it would be unfair to tar them all with the same brush as there are a lot of good decent people in that profession and especially the younger breed of legal eagles. The long established people seem to be a law onto themselves.

I will make a couple of points though. I have lost count the number of times that deeds were lost, properties were never registered even though contracts were completed and all fees were paid, stage payments of mortgages were not paid out, solicitors mapping sites and then billing clients for engineers fees, etc etc etc. I could go on for ever but I dont have the time.

2 personal matters over the years that stick in my mind. About 15 years ago we had a bit of conveyencing work to get done within the family. I contacted my late fathers solicitor who after initially refusing to give me an estimate of fees involved finally said it would be in the region of £1100 - £1200.
I then rang a solicitor who I knew fairly well and his final invoice was for £254 and that included Land Registry fees etc at the time. Does that surprise anyone.

The second matter relates directly to the above. When we got the copy folio we seen that there was a charge registered in the sum of £22,000 (almost). For anyone not familiar with this aspect of law the situation was that my father had died and allegedly owed someone £22,000 and this was registerd against his property which meant that nothing could be done with his property until this debt was cancelled.

He did not owe this money at all and neither he or any of the family were aware of it until we went to get the bit of family businness done at that time. As it turned out there were a total of 3 people (incl. my father) who had the same name and all lived within a few hundred yards of each other and all 3 had the same charge registered onj their deeds and none of them knew anything about it.

Now my fellow boardies, tell me if the law is good and that the people who practice it are all honest

smashey

muffler wrote:

Ive just been reading the posts by Maximilan and murphym5 and first of all I think its great that 2 solicitors are prepared to join in the debate here even though they are defending their own profession. But thats what the boards are about - getting healthy and balanced views from all parts of the spectrum.

Better keep the posts short otherwise our learned friends might charge us for the time spent reading them.:D

murphym5

Its good to see some support from the legal profession. I think the main point coming across is that many solicitors are not good communicators so it is definitely something I am going to try and improve at in the future

muffler

smashey wrote:

Better keep the posts short otherwise our learned friends might charge us for the time spent reading them.:D

Good one more learned friend

More to the point is who are they charging for the time they spend posting :eek: :eek: :eek:

Seriously though sorry about the long post but I couldnt get my story told and make any sense out of it if it was any shorter

muffler

murphym5 wrote:

Its good to see some support from the legal profession. I think the main point coming across is that many solicitors are not good communicators so it is definitely something I am going to try and improve at in the future

Good for you

Dub13

I agree that most solicitors are good and I have never had a problem when dealing with them.I think there fees are abit high but have found them willing to haggle.I have (and I think most people) a problem with how the profession is run.I am not a fan of self governing be it the Law Society or the Police Complaints Commission.The educational monopolies in Law is another issue that needs to be looked at,in this day an age you should not have to pass an examination in Irish.

There are far to many restrictive practices in Law,which makes the profession stink of old school "jobs for the boys".More transparency is needed.

Maximilian

Don't worry folks, this is all pro bono.

Look, there is now tons of competition in the profession. You can get a better deal if you "shop around". Be warned though, it is naive to expect a first class service if you are paying bottom dollar.

As far as the Law Society goes it wears "two hats". It acts as a training & representative body for the profession and also as a regulator. It actually does a very good job at both, despite the perceived conflict of interest. It is very conscious of not only doing a good job but being seen to do a good job by the public. I think the problem is that the public think its like some kind of trade union looking after individual solicitors' interest to the detriment of the public good. This is not the case. Its not entirely self-governing either - there is legislation governing the profession ie. the Solicitors Acts. As I mentioned earlier, the Law Society is relentless in pursuing solicitors who have been naughty. This is no cosy club minding jobs for the boys. Also, the Disciplinary Committee has a number of non-lawyers sitting on it.

I find it disappointing that when the Law Society comment on issues, people assume their only angle is safeguarding solicitor's incomes. This was especially true of their concerns regarding the PIAB - A body a set up by insurers, for insurers and composed of insurers. nemo iudex in causa sua as lawyers say. I know my premiums haven't dropped. Anyway, I digress.

The point about education is a fair one though - at the moment, you have to attend at the Law School in Blackhall Place. This is obviously financially harder for someone living outside of Dublin. I think that is something that is currently being examined.

Back to work - time is money!

JohnCleary

eoin_s wrote:

I actually think there are plans to make the legal profession a lot more transparant over here, and possibly removing the need for solicitors in certain circumstances, but not too sure about that.

Correct, take a look at www.piab.ie for example, they have removed the need for solicitors with Personal Injuries claims. The overall fee's are lower, the claiment gets more money.. Everybody's happy except the solicitors because they have less work! (I know this for a fact - one of my neighbours is raging over it - she said half the countries solicitors are the same)

daiixi

MrPudding wrote:

OK, this kind of makes sense but what is the excuse for not returning repeated calls?

I do understand what you are saying and I am sure it must be verry annoying to be painted with the same brush as your less commited colleagues but at the same time it is kind of offensive to dismiss peoples complaints as whining.

MrP

One thing that people don't realise is that solicitors have many clients and all those clients keep ringing and other solicitors keep ringing and the phones never stop ringing and voicemail is always full and the emails keep coming in together with the faxes and the letters and like everyone else, solicitors only have (usually!) two hands!!!!

I'm a secretary and I have worked for some ****house solicitors and I have worked for some fantastic ones.

I've had clients ringing up twenty times a day trying to get information and in the end I've gotten short with them because they're tying up value time AND the phone line! There are plenty of times you have to prioritise and while you may think you should be called back NOW, there are other people and other problems which sometimes need to take priority ahead of you.

If you want to be honest, real estate agents are the root of all evil!

deisemum

When we bought our place our solicitor was fantastic. It only took a month from when we first saw the place to when we moved in. Our solicitor was really on the ball and if she said she'd phone or return a call, she did. She has a very good reputation and I can see why. I'm sure she's not the only very good solicitor around.

I also know of a solicitors practice that are so arrogant in how they treat people. They were taken to court by the equality commission on behalf of a staff member who was sacked because they wanted to employ someone younger. They were the first employers to lose a case for being ageist and it was broadcast by all the media.

Like all jobs there are good and bad

RainyDay

daiixi wrote:

I've had clients ringing up twenty times a day trying to get information and in the end I've gotten short with them because they're tying up value time AND the phone line!

Interesting to note that it seems the customer is always wrong. If many clients are ringing 20 times a day, wouldn't that give the solicitor a fairly clear indicator that he/she is failing miserably to proactively provide clients with the information they require?

Maximilian

RainyDay wrote:

Interesting to note that it seems the customer is always wrong. If many clients are ringing 20 times a day, wouldn't that give the solicitor a fairly clear indicator that he/she is failing miserably to proactively provide clients with the information they require?

Believe me, no, it doesn't.

smashey

daiixi wrote:

There are plenty of times you have to prioritise and while you may think you should be called back NOW, there are other people and other problems which sometimes need to take priority ahead of you.

If you want to be honest, real estate agents are the root of all evil!

By prioritise I take this to mean deal with the most lucrative first.

While not being a fan of estate agents myself, they don't do the conveyancing which from my recent experience gives the soilcitors a chance to sit on some fat cheques for a while.

Maximilian

smashey wrote:

By prioritise I take this to mean deal with the most lucrative first.

While not being a fan of estate agents myself, they don't do the conveyancing which from my recent experience gives the soilcitors a chance to sit on some fat cheques for a while.

Prioritise as in the most urgent but thanks for your cynical contribution. Unfortunately (for us), the "priority" could and often does mean work which doesn't pay at all.

As for Estate Agents, they usually will charge more than solicitors do. Thats a discussion for another day though.

Solicitors do not benefit from "sitting on fat cheques".

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

Solicitors do not benefit from "sitting on fat cheques".

smashey

Maximilian wrote:

Solicitors do not benefit from "sitting on fat cheques".

Mine did and a most of my friends had the same experience. Bear in mind when we moved house the money all went through the solicitor who has to bank it before he can issue one of his own cheques to us. Now the time between banking the first cheque and issuing the second cheque is a lot longer than that required for the first cheque to clear. (I am allowing for any searches that have to be done here.) Factor in the probability that our solicitor would have quite af few transactions happening at the same time and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that large cheques + bank + high interest account (albeit for a short period) = nice little earner.

Sleipnir

It's a fair question though.

If a group of solicitors have 10 conveyances on their book within, let's say a month.
Let's also say that the solicitor is holding the deposit of 30,000 for each one over that month.
That's 300,000 euro.

Where, exactly is that held? In a bank account? If so, the companies bank account? The solictor's own bank account(!!!)
That's a fair bit of interest if you work it out over a year.......

Maximilian

Sleipnir wrote:

It's a fair question though.

If a group of solicitors have 10 conveyances on their book within, let's say a month.
Let's also say that the solicitor is holding the deposit of 30,000 for each one over that month.
That's 300,000 euro.

Where, exactly is that held? In a bank account? If so, the companies bank account? The solictor's own bank account(!!!)
That's a fair bit of interest if you work it out over a year.......

Client monies are kept in a client current account which earns no interest. If a large sum of money is expected to be held for a long time, a special client deposit account could be opened; any interest earned would belong to the client.

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

any interest earned would belong to the client.

Sure would but would the client get it

muffler

Whats the difference between a solicitor and an eel. One of them is slimey, slippery and hard to catch and the other is an eel

A solicitor actually told me that joke

smashey

Maximilian wrote:

Client monies are kept in a client current account which earns no interest. If a large sum of money is expected to be held for a long time, a special client deposit account could be opened; any interest earned would belong to the client.

When we received our cheque (along with the final account) there was no mention of any interest in our favour even though the solicitor had the money for at least 6 weeks. Nobody I have spoken to has ever received an interest based adjustment in their favour.

Maximilian, I will take your word on this but your colleagues throughout the country don't do much to convince us that this is not happening. The only way for them to do so would be more open with their clients and the public as a whole regarding the conveyancing procedure and show clearly when each cheque was received and banked and when each subsequent cheque was issued. This should be done without the client incurring any further costs.

Maximilian

The problem with a deposit account is that you can't just take the money out whenever you need it, notice must be given.

Like I just said, the money was presumably held in a client current account for 6 weeks, hence, there would be no interest earned. In fact, if anything solicitors are out of pocket as they have to pay the bank charges themselves.

A solicitor simply cannot benefit from client monies in any way, not even one cent. Their accounts must be audited and submitted to the Law Society before they can even get a Practising Certificate. A Client Account is for clients' money - it is sacrosanct. If you are suggesting that solicitor(s) are benefiting from client monies in any way, shape or form you are accusing them of a crime and moreover, haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Frankly I'm getting sick of some of the willful ignorance some (not all) people are showing. I don't mind answering questions at all but I am getting pissed off answering accusations against a profession I happen to be proud of. Some of you are clearly obstinately bent on just slagging off the legal profession. Don't dress your opinions up as educated.

Dub13

I am keeping an eye on this thread,no more wild accusation's.Maximilian is here answering questions,I am interested in hearing the the solicitors side.This is a good thread with a healthy debate and I don't want to close it but if you force my hand I will.

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

Frankly I'm getting sick of some of the willful ignorance some (not all) people are showing............... Don't dress your opinions up as educated.

So you are the educated and smart person here and us common mortals are not entitled to an opinion and if we give one it is treated with contempt by that remark.
I dont like being talked down to if it is me you are referring to