Problems with the Legal Profession

smashey

Maximilian wrote:

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.

I take exception to the educated opinions remark. Is it because people in the legal profession refer to themselves as "learned" and by implication the rest of us are not and therefore incapable of making an educated remark.

I take your point on the deposit account. However what I pointed out in my earlier posts is a common enough perception of the legal profession by those not directly involved in it and as I also said, your colleagues throughout the country could do more to discourage this.

Maximilian

muffler wrote:

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

Actully, I wasn't referring to you at all, as it happens. Not that your sarcastic comments qualify as opinions. As far as sarcastic comments go, I can't really criticise you without calling round to Mr. B. Kettle for coffee.

I'm not claiming to be either the smartest or most educated person around but I would claim to know more about the legal profession than most others here. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. I do have a problem hpwever, with people wrongly presenting their opinions as fact.

smashey wrote:

I take exception to the educated opinions remark. Is it because people in the legal profession refer to themselves as "learned" and by implication the rest of us are not and therefore incapable of making an educated remark.

I take your point on the deposit account. However what I pointed out in my earlier posts is a common enough perception of the legal profession by those not directly involved in it and as I also said, your colleagues throughout the country could do more to discourage this.

Smashey, I'm not sugesting you're a dumbass. You could be MacGyver for all I know. I am suggesting that you don't really know what your talking about when it comes to the legal profession - as proven by your client account "nice little earner" post(s) I found those comments offensive tbh. Perhaps next time, try to ask questions or ascertain the facts first before commenting, rather than the reverse. After that, you can make whatever comment you want.

As for your points about combating peoples' perceptions - in fact such perceptions are discouraged - constantly. Ken Murphy (Director General of the Law Society) for example has often written articles, letters etc. in the Irish Times and other papers. Sadly, not everyone bothers to read them. Mind you. I'd probably skip over them too if I weren't a lawyer.

Anyway, I've said my piece on all that. I'm happy to continue contributing to this thread if it can keep above the level of schoolyard debate*.

*comment not intended to imply anyone is childish, un-learned, in school.

Dub13

Ok people...you have all had your say,so can we now stay on topic or this gets locked.Thank you.

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

Not that your sarcastic comments qualify as opinions. As far as sarcastic comments go, I can't really criticise you without calling round to Mr. B. Kettle for coffee.................................I do have a problem hpwever, with people wrongly presenting their opinions as fact....................Anyway, I've said my piece on all that. I'm happy to continue contributing to this thread if it can keep above the level of schoolyard debate*.

*comment not intended to imply anyone is childish, un-learned, in school.

Dub13, I am just responding to those remarks and then going fully on topic.

Maximilian, your comments above are exactly what I was referring to in my last post. You seem to think that I am unable for some reason or other to post here without it being seen as being sarcastic by you and you only. Where did you see a sarcastic comment from me. Anything I posted was fact or a joke and if it was the latter it was made plain that it was so.

Now fully on topic I give, as the thread title suggests, 2 true and accurate accounts of dealings I had with solicitors and which were effectively "Problems with the Legal Profession" I note that you made no comment whatsoever on either of them. Not a word to say it doesn't happen or it shouldn't happen or "Oh my God, you should bring that the attention of the Law Society without further ado"

No, you have remained silent on that particular post for reasons best known to yourself. I thought you might even have had the balls to try and defend the indefencible.

Anyway I told my story and it is recorded in the Land Registry documents for all to see and that is my contribution to the debate.

bbbbb

I don't think anyone on either side can argue that a negative perception of the legal profession has built as a result of events such as:
- fees charged/earned in Tribunals, amy deafness cases.
- certain adverts, "no foal, no fee" cases

As a result of public liability gone mad, people were paying directly though higher insurance premiums, which of recent have started to come done through measures like PIAB.

Also, until very recently at least there appears to have been very little self-regulation of the industry, and it is only now that cases of firms having double charged being censured are coming to light.

Many people on this thread (myself included) have had poor first hand experience dealing with the legal profession.

I accept that there are good and bad apples in all walks of live, but I will take some convincing that the Irish legal barrel does not have way more that it's fair share of rotten apples.

Maximilian

muffler wrote:

Dub13, I am just responding to those remarks and then going fully on topic.

Maximilian, your comments above are exactly what I was referring to in my last post. You seem to think that I am unable for some reason or other to post here without it being seen as being sarcastic by you and you only. Where did you see a sarcastic comment from me. Anything I posted was fact or a joke and if it was the latter it was made plain that it was so.

Now fully on topic I give, as the thread title suggests, 2 true and accurate accounts of dealings I had with solicitors and which were effectively "Problems with the Legal Profession" I note that you made no comment whatsoever on either of them. Not a word to say it doesn't happen or it shouldn't happen or "Oh my God, you should bring that the attention of the Law Society without further ado"

No, you have remained silent on that particular post for reasons best known to yourself. I thought you might even have had the balls to try and defend the indefencible.

Anyway I told my story and it is recorded in the Land Registry documents for all to see and that is my contribution to the debate.

Forgive me. Please replace the word "sarcastic comment" with the word "joke" or the synonym of your own choosing. I have commented as I saw fit and wasn't choosing to ignore anything. As for your own story; the fact of the matter is there could be any number of reasons for what happened however, you choose to believe it was some nasty solicitor's fault/incompetence etc. Maybe it was, who knows. I, for one, know better than to speculate.

In any case, I've pretty much had my fill of this.

RainyDay

Maximilian wrote:

Believe me, no, it doesn't.

Any chance that you could explain why it doesn't?

Maximilian wrote:

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.

Ever heard of 'demand' deposit accounts (i.e. no notice period) like those available from Northern Rock (3.25%)? But to be honest, I don't reckon solicitors make significant money from delaying client cheques either.

muffler

Maximilian wrote:

As for your own story; the fact of the matter is there could be any number of reasons for what happened however, you choose to believe it was some nasty solicitor's fault/incompetence etc. Maybe it was, who knows. I, for one, know better than to speculate.

In any case, I've pretty much had my fill of this.

Now then Maxi, Im a bit disappointed at your "look down my nose" comments once again. Who's resorting to schoolyard level again? If you are going to post here, do so, without reverting to your continual childish and snobbish comments.

I just hope that the mod is reading your posts in detail. I said nothing at all about you in my last few posts but you are still whinging and snarling.

Back to my story and I have to say that I am amazed at your ability
to conclude that I had blamed a solicitor for the problem. Where in my post did I say that? I blamed nobody at all. I told the story as it was and apportioned no blame to any solicitor. If you want to read it again or indeed for the benefit of anyone else trying to catch up on this, well here it is again.

"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"

As regards having "your fill of this" theres the old saying about heat and kitchen

thanatos

muffler wrote:

.... I am amazed at your ability to conclude that I had blamed a solicitor for the problem. Where in my post did I say that?

You said it here...

muffler wrote:

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

AND, you posted it in a thread entitled "Problems with the Legal Profession".
The conclusion that you were blaming solicitors is not a difficult one to make by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with Maximilian on all his points.
He has tried to bring some level of intelligent debate to this thread which, started of as a torrent of abuse.
He has been met with nothing more than nit picking and slagging as he adequately, and I must say professionally, dealt with the "arguments" raised.

You had the opportunity to DEBATE with 2 solicitors and a legal secretary, it could have been very useful and informative but, if this is all that can come from this thread then there is NO point in continuing it.

muffler

thanatos wrote:

You said it here...



AND, you posted it in a thread entitled "Problems with the Legal Profession".
The conclusion that you were blaming solicitors is not a difficult one to make by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with Maximilian on all his points.
He has tried to bring some level of intelligent debate to this thread which, started of as a torrent of abuse.
He has been met with nothing more than nit picking and slagging as he adequately, and I must say professionally, dealt with the "arguments" raised.

You had the opportunity to DEBATE with 2 solicitors and a legal secretary, it could have been very useful and informative but, if this is all that can come from this thread then there is NO point in continuing it.

For the benefit of people who are not familiar with judgements as was the case in my particular story I will outline what I believe to be the case.

The judgement was given at a district court in Dublin by a District Court Judge based on the "facts" presented to him/her. These so called facts could have come from a solicitor or a private investigater or the reps/agents of the people who were seeking the judgement.

Three innocent people had the judgements registered against their properties yet none of them owed any of the money involved. They were never notified of the pending case or given an opportunity of offering a defence. Their only "crime" was to have been given a particular name at birth.

As you will see any number of people could have been to blame for that charade and I certainly did not say it was a solicitor so stick to the facts.

As regards continuing with this thread or not I think that is down to the members here and the mod. If you feel its useless then dont bother posting

Sleipnir

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.

Thanks for the info.

Megatron

Maximilian wrote:

the fact of the matter is there could be any number of reasons for what happened however, you choose to believe it was some nasty solicitor's fault/incompetence etc. Maybe it was, who knows. I, for one, know better than to speculate.

Well talk about Owning yourself.


Very well done