Solicitor slow over probate

Errata

monkey_spank wrote: »

Does anybody know whether this horrible girl can remove me as a trustee? She mentioned something about the trusts of land and the appointment of trustees act, which I've never heard of.

see google http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ksnB1nHNmS8J:webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1997/issue1/rtf/jones1.rtf+trusts+of+land&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

Savvy_Sue

monkey, I think it would be worth posting your question separately.

Give the horrible girl a copy of that Dickens book for Christmas, the one where they spend years wrangling over a will and the solicitors get all the money ... :rotfl:

sdooley

If it is a discretionary trust your beneficiary can't remove you unless she can prove you've acted badly. It's the flip side of Maggie's problem, that it's very hard to remove bad executors or trustees, but this protects good trustees who just happen to make decisions that beneficiaries don't agree with.

If your beneficiary is entitled to part of the trust fund as of right she may be able to appoint new trustees for that part.

Law students are notorious for misinterpreting law in their own favour!

If all possible beneficiaries are adults and decide to bring the trust to an end/change the trust terms/appoint new trustees they can.

I don't think it is necessary or realistic for all solicitors, accountants, legal executives or willwriters working in wills and probate to be STEP qualified or equivalent - but they should all have someone who is that qualified to turn to if they have a question - whether that is a boss, a colleague, a barrister or another firm. And they should know the limits of their own knowledge and ask for advice before they reach that limit.

We don't think any worse of GPs for referring us to a consultant, but we would think a GP was rubbish if they said we weren't ill and refused to refer to a specialist when we are ill.

sloughflint

sdooley wrote: »

I don't think it is necessary or realistic for all solicitors, accountants, legal executives or willwriters working in wills and probate to be STEP qualified or equivalent

Why not? What's the problem with it if it is a cheap course ( someone mentioned this somewhere)

sdooley wrote: »

- but they should all have someone who is that qualified to turn to if they have a question - whether that is a boss, a colleague, a barrister or another firm. And they should know the limits of their own knowledge and ask for advice before they reach that limit.

But that's the problem. If they aren't suitably qualified,will they know the limits of their knowledge?
In one of the firms I dealt with, there were STEP members to hand but the solicitor had no intention of referring to one until I pushed and it was a good job that I did.

sdooley wrote: »

We don't think any worse of GPs for referring us to a consultant,

No, but then we know that GPs aren't specialists in one area. Yet we have far too many examples for my liking of solicitors claiming to specialise in Wills and Probate who aren't up to the job.The fact that they then don't consult true specialists is another story.

So what is the solution? What do others think?

localhero

Sdooley, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. First of all you say this: (post 98) I assume where you say everything, you mean everybody, as in all solicitors who deal with Wills and probate.

sdooley wrote:

I did some of the STEP qualifications.....Everything should do it or some other exams to the same standard.

Then you say the opposite at post 104:

sdooley wrote:

I don't think it is necessary or realistic for all solicitors, accountants, legal executives or willwriters working in wills and probate to be STEP qualified or equivalent

Perhaps you could explain the contradiction.

I would add that the IPW and STEP find it necessary and realistic for their members to be properly qualified. You don't honestly believe that the equity and trusts exam on the law degree sufficiently qualifies solicitors to be writing Wills - let's not forget probably the most important thing we will all ever sign - and then dealing with estates with all the taxation and other issues that flow from that do you?

sdooley wrote:

There are clearly a lot of bad solicitors out there - although proportionately with over 100,000 solicitors in the country

sdooley... wrote:

but they should all have someone who is that qualified to turn to if they have a question - whether that is a boss, a colleague, a barrister or another firm. And they should know the limits of their own knowledge and ask for advice before they reach that limit.

And how many of that 100,000 (a worryingly high number) are sole practitioners or among a small high street firm? Who can they turn to?

You are obviously an intelligent guy and a solicitor yourself among a heck of a lot, so I can understand your reluctance to criticise a profession that obviously pays you well, but whilst accepting there is a big problem, you are not answering the very direct question that myself, sloughflint and even monkey are asking you - and that is, what is the solution to this really serious problem of incompetent solicitors involving themselves with Wills and probate?

As part of any solution, should it not be compulsory for all practitioners to demonstrate their expertise by passing an exam dedicated to this subject?

sdooley

sloughflint wrote: »

Why not? What's the problem with it if it is a cheap course ( someone mentioned this somewhere)

Because until you have (properly supervised) experience you won't pass the course.

But that's the problem. If they aren't suitably qualified,will they know the limits of their knowledge?
In one of the firms I dealt with, there were STEP members to hand but the solicitor had no intention of referring to one until I pushed and it was a good job that I did.

It's a solicitor's professional duty not to work beyond the ability of their knowledge - solicitors can't practice alone until they are at least 3 years qualified (i.e. 5 years experience including the training contract). It's their supervisor's professional duty to see that they are obtaining proper supervision.

Savvy_Sue

localhero wrote: »

DaisyDaisy82, I think if you were to read the whole thread you would see quite how incompetent/unethical the OP's solicitor is.

Having said that, I thought her post was useful in terms of highlighting what's got to happen, and how long it might be expected to take.

sloughflint

This seems to have latterly turned into a bit of a three way discussion between two legally qualified individuals and myself who isn’t at all. Despite my lack of legal background, being in the unfortunate position of witnessing too many problems, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the profession has got its problems in the area of Wills and Probate.
I keep coming back to these thoughts:
My concerns are for the many unsuspecting people taking a gamble and instructing probate solicitors who might not be up to the job to draw up Wills and administer estates. How can this be overcome?What is the solution?

As an outside observer, I thought that poor knowledge was a plausible reason for problems and improved knowledge via more adequate/relevant qualifications made perfect sense.
I am receiving mixed messages now.At one point you seemed to agree,sdooley:

sdooley wrote: »

ultimately also the expansion of STEP to the stage where it is no longer just seen as an ivory tower but a course which every self-respecting practitioner in the field would undertake. It's less expensive than one year of an undergraduate degree and open to everyone - lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers, willwriters and bank staff.

But you seem to have changed your mind and the reasons you offered in your last post were:

sdooley wrote: »

Because until you have (properly supervised) experience you won't pass the course. .

I can’t see the problem with this either.Rather like surgeons not being let loose on their own with a knife until they have shown competence.
It it a cost issue? Are firms simply unwilling to invest in this idea because at the moment they don’t have to?

sdooley wrote: »

It's a solicitor's professional duty not to work beyond the ability of their knowledge - solicitors can't practice alone until they are at least 3 years qualified (i.e. 5 years experience including the training contract). It's their supervisor's professional duty to see that they are obtaining proper supervision.

It sounds good in principle but sadly this clearly isn’t enough though, is it?
If it was then I would not have had to deal with a partner of a multi-branch firm practising for many years in Wills and Probate, making mistakes,for example.
We have examples of long established practitioners working beyond their ability of their knowledge unwilling to seek expert advice even if STEP members are to hand.

sdooley wrote: »

Neither the Law Society nor the SRA has the ability to change the qualifications required to practise in a specific area.

Well that is a shame.

sdooley wrote: »

Legal executives usually work in a solicitor's firm (or a bank) but unlike solicitors they are qualified in one area of law only.

You sung the praises of legal executives and accountants in another post. That may well be a good idea for people reading this thread to consider as an option.
Do legal executives write Wills as well as handle probate? What exactly are their qualifications and how do they fare?

sdooley wrote: »

a local solicitor will charge approximately 25% of the fees of a STEP member and even less in comparison to the banks.

At this moment in time, unless something is posted that can convince me otherwise, the only way I can see to ensure adequate and relevant knowledge, would be to pay 400% of solicitor prices to instruct a STEP member or employ the services of an IPW member ( I noted localhero mentioned probate work is also undertaken as well as will-writing) for the MSE option.

But that still doesn't help the people who are unaware of the risks.

sdooley

Everyone should do the STEP qualifications, or something equivalent, when they have enough experience to pass. I know you guys don't like analogies, but doctors have to go through years of supervised practice before they can carry out a specialism unsupervised, why should that not be similar with lawyers (it is at most law firms)? It's twisting my words to suggest I mean that partners working in the field shouldn't have that level of training - and if the IPW believes everyone should have a qualifictions before they practice why do they provide for the supervision of student members too?

I seriously doubt it's a cost issue, courses are cheap, it might be a time out of the office issue, especially in the case of the partner. But that partner, if forced, probably would learn and pass the STEP course or the IPW course, he or she presumably had the intellectual capacity to learn and pass such an exam, but would he or she apply the results to the job? He or she will probably have been on, or even presented, large numbers of technically accurate courses on the nuances of and updates to the law in the practice area - ultimately it is not the knowledge that makes you good at your job it is the ability to apply that knowledge to a client's situation - no number of exams can teach that. That in any profession will be a matter for supervision by your peers and ultimately the regulator.

sloughflint

I've just re-read Savvy-Sue's link from a few pages back. Legal Executives do draft Wills.