Solicitor slow over probate

sloughflint

sdooley wrote: »

c. 100,000 is the total number of solicitors in the country, in all fields, not the number of bad solicitors!

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.

I didn't see your post as I posted.
I'm not too sure I've understood your answer.
Are you agreeing with me now that everyone should be better qualified eg to STEP standard and it isn't a bad thing to have long supervised experience in order to pass/be trusted like surgeons?

sloughflint

sdooley wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry to keep pressing you but what is the solution then? This person I referred to had practised for donkeys years.
I am firmly of the opinion that the problem is widespread; even more so since reading MSE threads.

sdooley

You quoted me saying 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?

I answered this above - they can turn to a barrister or another firm. That's a cost of being a sole practitioner or a small firm - although even large firms have to refer work elsewhere - if they aren't specialists in the area, if they are too busy(!), if they are too expensive for the work, if there is a conflict with an existing client or if there is so much money at risk the firm wants to secure its own position with a second opinion. Referrals can be an opportunity too - both for the knowledge exchanged and the possibility of work coming back in similar situations.

Presumably small IPW members turn to other members or solicitors, barristers etc when confronted with a question they can't answer?

sdooley

yes sloughflint, I think everyone should do training to a high standard but I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to have the training completed before starting work - so long as they are properly supervised.

sdooley

As for a solution - the question has been around since Roman times - who watches the watchman?

The only effective way to stop people bodging wills is to remove testamentary freedom - to have state-mandated gifts to spouse and children etc. Anything else is always going to be a half-measure, with a mix of good, strong, supervisory bodies, lobbying to government to increase requirements for exams, professional indemnity insurance and HR policies at reputable firms which review people's work as they go along and identify needs for further training.

sloughflint

First let’s just clear up a little bit of confusion,sdooley:

sdooley wrote: »

You quoted me saying

I think you might have been confusing me with localhero. We both quoted your underlined part but I didn’t mention the 100 000 solicitor/sole practitioners aspect.

sdooley wrote: »

It's twisting my words to suggest I mean that partners working in the field shouldn't have that level of training .

I’m sorry you feel that way but please take another look at your posts ie 104 and 107.What else was I to think?.......

sdooley wrote: »

yes sloughflint, I think everyone should do training to a high standard but I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to have the training completed before starting work - so long as they are properly supervised.

……However, I am most relieved that you agree that a higher standard of qualification is needed. I formed that impression long ago when very experienced solicitors were making quite fundamentally basic mistakes. I may have no legal background but I am well aware of how basic the errors were. So an improved and tested knowledge base would be a very welcome idea for me. I assumed that the supervision aspect would automatically be the case in early years.

The concern that I have is once people have reached past that stage and are no longer supervised. My outsider’s view is that the problems within solicitor practices are a combination of inadequate qualifications and unwillingness to accept when they are out of their depth. A combination of ignorance and arrogance perhaps? Why else would experienced solicitors fail to seek assistance from an in house STEP member and need a client ( with no legal background) to insist on a second opinion?

sdooley wrote: »

The only effective way to stop people bodging wills is to remove testamentary freedom - to have state-mandated gifts to spouse and children etc.

Precisely. If the law was codified, there would be no point in making a Will in the first place.

sdooley wrote: »

Anything else is always going to be a half-measure, with a mix of good, strong, supervisory bodies, lobbying to government to increase requirements for exams, professional indemnity insurance and HR policies at reputable firms which review people's work as they go along and identify needs for further training.

Well, all that sounds like a long way off and I still don’t know how Legal Executive qualifications fare so my opinion in the latter part of post 109 remains unchanged.

I feel very sorry for all the unsuspecting souls in the country.

ukmaggie45

Many thanks to all for interesting discussion. I now want to update you as far as I am able about our meeting today with Solicitor 2 (as I shall call them).

Solicitor 2 will write to Solicitor 1 (the one we've been dealing with thus far) as professional to professional. Will say acting for husband (as executor) and has been requested to draw up a Deed of Variation and needs to know if he knows of any reason not explained to us why it would not work in this case.

Solicitor 2 is a STEP person, I'm sure some of you will be relieved to know that!

Sorry this is terse, am totally knackered by the meeting and then having difficulty getting a cab to come home.

We maybe feel a little more optimistic.

Will let you know when things move on or I have more news.

Thank you again to all who have contributed to this thread. :A :A :A

jazzyjustlaw

sdooley wrote: »

Once the mother died it made it more complex; before then you might not have thought to do anything (unless you knew she was ill).

Legal executives usually work in a solicitor's firm (or a bank) but unlike solicitors they are qualified in one area of law only. They are essentially a more formalised version (with a professional body checking on standards) of the old 'clerks' and may not have been to university, etc, rather have gained practical 'on the job' experience over many years. Again though they are unlikely to be tax experts: the difference I would say is that a tax expert will plan for taxes in an optimal way where a normal practitioner will account for tax accurately.

A third professional who is useful sometimes is the accountant - they will tend to be much better on income tax and CGT, setting off losses against interest and dividends and allocating distributions accross tax years - well worth the £800 or so they may charge to prepare a set of estate accounts.

In many cases there is no tax or there is no choice but to pay the tax. In this one it looks like there may be a planning opportunity - but only if you beat the deadline.

More and more Legal Executives have law degrees but couldnt afford the LPC - like me. I left uni and got a job in a law firm. In due course I will do the LPC and become a Solicitor - not in Probate I would like to add although I studied it on ILEX.

sloughflint

Thanks for the update. I was wondering how you were getting on.

ukmaggie45 wrote: »

Solicitor 2 is a STEP person, I'm sure some of you will be relieved to know that!

I think that was one thing we were all agreed on. It's just a shame that it had to get to that.

ukmaggie45 wrote: »

Solicitor 2 will write to Solicitor 1 (the one we've been dealing with thus far) as professional to professional. Will say acting for husband (as executor) and has been requested to draw up a Deed of Variation and needs to know if he knows of any reason not explained to us why it would not work in this case.

That sounds like a good plan.Good luck.

ukmaggie45

sdooley wrote: »

p.s. Maggie - how was your 60th birthday?

It was magic. :beer:

Had lots of nice prezzies :T - digital picture frame from the kids, with loads of (ancient!) photos loaded on it. Good fun, and will have fun loading more stuff on with a dedicated flash card when have more time.

Husband gave me a beautiful Art Nouveau gold pendant with Peridots (my birthstone). :j You could have knocked me over with a feather! Husband is not a jewellery bloke at all!

Evening before my cousin Robert (age between my two daughters) came over with his Mum and my cousin Sue, who is a couple of years younger than me. I hadn't seen her since her Mum's funeral so far as I can remember, so around 29 years ago!!! :eek:

We actually managed to BBQ that evening - good weather for once!

Sorry late replying to this, last few weeks have been hard work, trying to get information and stuff. I'm sure you understand!