Unfair Dismissal - Solicitor Fees

Equaliser123

vaporate wrote: »

Big deal.

Rubbish.

Thanks for raising the level of debate yet further.

Nassy

This debate has definitely polarised opinion! I think this just shows that there is no right and wrong way and people ought to be able to do what feels comfortable for them without being judged too much. It would be nice if everyone could have free representation but that isn't possible always. And probably 1 hour of solicitor time isn't going to give you a clear idea of the strength of a case but may help give an indication if the case is a complete no hoper.

I do agree on comments on the Tories and I would never vote for them personally. BTW if they have their way you will need at least 2 years to argue unfair dismissal. I love the Tories - you pay just as much tax with them (possibly more) but ultimately you get less help from the state if you need it.

Uncertain

Nassy wrote: »

I love the Tories - you pay just as much tax with them (possibly more) but ultimately you get less help from the state if you need it.

But the trouble with socialism is that eventually your run out of other people's money!

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Equally I'm a bit uneasy about the "everybody should have insurance / union membership argument". I've taken my car to a body shop a couple of times only to be asked "Is this an insurance job mate"? It is amazing how much less it costs if it is not!!

To be fair - I didn't say that everyone should have insurance / union membership, any more than everyone has house insurance. But if you do not insure your house and contents, you are not in a position to run around saying how unfair it is that nobody will rebuild it and replace the contents for free!

And actually, amazingly - legal insurance works the other way around! Lawyers bills are cheaper - but as someone observed previously, you get what you pay for. Barristers charge what they charge - there is a fixed scale for the chambers and that is the cost whoever comes knocking at the door. But barristers tend not to do insurance work (and if we do, the bill is still the bill!). Legal insurance either employs solicitors and para-legals, or, as is common, solicitors practices tender for work / introductions. Since this is a case of the lowest price wins, what kind of practices do you think submit the lowest quotes - certainly not the ones that have plenty of experience and work.

SarEl

vaporate wrote: »

Big deal.

Rubbish.

I take it that the answer to my question about what you do to improve the lot of your fellow human beings is to sit around swilling beer and pontificating at length about subjects on which you have no knowledge. Well it's nice to know that you are making such a useful contribution.

Ewarwoowar2

Equaliser123 wrote: »

No you won't know where you stand at all. Paying for an hour is a total absurd waste of money.

Why? Because solicitors have to "open a file". By that they have to carry out conflict searches. They have to carry out money laundering checks. They have to open a physical file and obtain approvals to act. All are ABSOLUTELY required. This takes time.

Before the lawyer even looks at the matter, 50% of the fee has been used up.

I'm saying this from the position of being a solicitor who had to go through all that crap when in private practice.

So, in my personal and professional opinion, only a complete "twonk" would pay for a bit of advice.

I don't know where you worked or what experience you've had, but the above is not true for all law firms.

I work in a decent national firm and would not charge the client for any of the admin stuff you mention. My secretary does all that. I don't charge for the client care letter either.

For an individual, I meet them for an hour for fee, agree what they want me to do (write a letter, draft a claim for them, etc) and, if they haven't got any insurance, how much each bit will cost.

If the person can't afford it, then they can take my advice and either act for themselves or see CAB.

If I think someone has a good case and want to help them, but they can't afford the fees, I will usually act for them for free and take an agreed amount out of what I can get for them. If I can't get anything, I will write off the fees. I will usually get the company who I am suing or threatening to sue to pay all or some of my fees.

Working this way makes sure that the client has agreed everything and is happy with the outcome. In 5 years of practice, I've never had anyone complain about my bill.

I know there are some cowboys out there that will charge for every little thing and then hit the client with a big bill, but that's the same in most professions.

I also do free clinic work in my lunch or after work. I often think it's funny that lawyers are seen as milking people, when we charge in a similar way to electricians, dentists, etc... and I don't hear of those professions giving away any free work to people who can't afford it.

snuggle69

Well I thought I would have another look at this thread and see if anyone else had any helpful suggestions for this member, and all there is are people bickering over legal positions and fees.

Shame you didnt put all your efforts into helping this person rather than picking on each other.

Gothicfairy

Well, I thought my advice was helpful but guess I was wrong Boo Hoo

snuggle69

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Well, I thought my advice was helpful but guess I was wrong Boo Hoo

Yours was definately helpful advice, sorry if you thought this may have been aimed at you.

Equaliser123

snuggle69 wrote: »

Well I thought I would have another look at this thread and see if anyone else had any helpful suggestions for this member, and all there is are people bickering over legal positions and fees.

Shame you didnt put all your efforts into helping this person rather than picking on each other.

Rubbish. The debate was about how a law firm would charge and whether it would be worthwhile instructing on a partial basis.

Keep up.