Compromise Agreements - Help??

Undervalued

LegalSec wrote: »

Compromise Agreements – I thought they were ‘no fault’ agreements yet I have been given one which makes me acknowledge I was dismissed fairly. Is this normal? Is this legal?

Well, nobody can make you sign it if you are not willing to accept the terms offered.

Which leaves you with two choices....

Attempt to negotiate a deal you are happy with

or

Take your chances with an ET claim

From what I remember of your past threads your position is not exactly strong. However, given that they are prepared to offer a CA at all they either just don't want the hassle or realise they have made some technical mistake.

If you are going to attempt to negotiate I would concentrate on an agreed reference. That can be worth far more than any financial settlement and also makes the reason for leaving given in the CA irrelevant.

zzzLazyDaisy

OP, I remember your previous threads, so I am not going to waste my time or energy getting involved with this one.

However, for your information, 'compromise agreements' were replaced by 'settlement agreements' last July. You will find some information here:

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4395


If you need further general information on settlement agreements, you may wish to contact ACAS.

For more specific advice on your own personal situation, you should seek advice from a specialist employment solicitor. As has already been pointed out on this thread, as part of the process you must receive legal advice from a solicitor who will go through the SA with you and explain the consequences of signing the document. If you have any questions about the wording of the document, you should raise those issues during that meeting.

Daisy

andygb

fruitedeli wrote: »

Retired lawyers specialising in employment law has attempted to help in the previous threads but OP only listens to what she wants to hear. I'd give up if I were you.

Employer should do everyone a favour and take this all the way through, ensuring OP never works as a legal secretary again. Someone who becomes verbally abusive to others in more than one occasion is simply not fit to work in a client facing role. OP isn't being forced to resign due to one isolated incident.

Unfortunately you seem unable to refrain from embellishing the story, and anyone who would wish to see someone barred from a profession for life, just because of an argument, is in my opinion a nasty piece of work.
The OP stated in other threads that she did not swear at a client. She also stated that she had an argument with a trainee solicitor - something which is very common in law firms, because you sometimes have an "upstairs/downstairs" atttitude existing between certain staff who think that they know everything. Experienced support staff - secretaries and accounts personnel - very often have to put their foot down with junior staff, particularly where regulatory natters are concerned, because this could jeopardise the whole firm. The fact is, that certain young solicitors do not like to be contradicted (corrected would be a better word;)), when they wish to do something which would clearly be in breach of the SRA's.
As we do not know what has happened here, then it would probably be a good idea to take the OP at face value and offer advice, rather than letting your imagination run wild.:)

unlikelyheroine

andygb wrote: »

Unfortunately you seem unable to refrain from embellishing the story, and anyone who would wish to see someone barred from a profession for life, just because of an argument, is in my opinion a nasty piece of work.
The OP stated in other threads that she did not swear at a client. She also stated that she had an argument with a trainee solicitor - something which is very common in law firms, because you sometimes have an "upstairs/downstairs" atttitude existing between certain staff who think that they know everything. Experienced support staff - secretaries and accounts personnel - very often have to put their foot down with junior staff, particularly where regulatory natters are concerned, because this could jeopardise the whole firm. The fact is, that certain young solicitors do not like to be contradicted (corrected would be a better word;)), when they wish to do something which would clearly be in breach of the SRA's.
As we do not know what has happened here, then it would probably be a good idea to take the OP at face value and offer advice, rather than letting your imagination run wild.:)

Given you don't know what happened either, to speculate on the facts because trainees are perceived as not knowing very much doesn't assist either. Yes some trainees arrive in "trainee partner mode" and talk down to secretaries and other support staff (which I hate to see and actively discourage), but the flipside is that they often struggle to get their work done because they are bottom of the pile and possibly not sticking around and it is frequently in the latter context that I have seen conflicts arise. Who knows what happened here, but it is a rare and valuable secretary who knows relevant regulations better than even a trainee lawyer. The secretary will have seen more of legal practice, yes. They will not have had to recently pass the professional conduct exams that the trainee has nor make decisions about files at even the level of the trainee. If the argument here concerned the secretary correctly advising a trainee solicitor of the relevant regulations for the good of the firm and the trainee resisting that guidance then some people here may need to eat their words, but I'll eat my hat.

zzzLazyDaisy

Andygb, you remind me of a secretary I once had, who thought she was better that me because she had worked for the firm longer than I had. She was over heard by a Senior Partner saying pretty much what you just said. Turned out it wasn't the first time, but it was the last - she was dismissed.

For your information, Trainee Solicitors are NOT 'junior members of staff' but professionals with a law degree and a mandatory post-graduate legal qualification. They are fee-earners with targets and responsibilities, and report to a Principal who is responsible for monitoring their work. The Principal must be a qualified solicitor of at least 3 years PQE, but is more usually a partner in the firm. A secretary never has the authority to 'put their foot down' with a Trainee Solicitor, as you put it, and I do not know of any law firm that would tolerate such behaviour (as I recall OP received a formal warning under the firm's disciplinary procedure for that outburst).

As for the attitude to the client - whether OP swore at the client or not is a moot point - as I remember (I haven't gone back and checked) on her own account of the events as given on her thread, OP's attitude and conduct towards a client of the firm would, in my experience, be viewed by most law firms as unprofessional and unacceptable.

Who knows what has happened in the intervening period, but it is clearly enough for the firm to want her off the premises, hence her enquiry about a compromise/settlement agreement.

andygb

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Andygb, you remind me of a secretary I once had, who thought she was better that me

No, she may well have been better than you. I hope that you didn't send letters out to clients and mix up "that" and "than".;)
In my quite vast experience, "junior" solicitors or trainees can be good or bad, or anything in between, the same of course applies to other members of staff.
If a new, inexperienced member of staff needs putting right, then that can be done by anyone.
I would love you to point out to me something which I may have said, which would be grounds for dismissal:rotfl:

andygb

unlikelyheroine wrote: »

Given you don't know what happened either, to speculate on the facts because trainees are perceived as not knowing very much doesn't assist either. Yes some trainees arrive in "trainee partner mode" and talk down to secretaries and other support staff (which I hate to see and actively discourage), but the flipside is that they often struggle to get their work done because they are bottom of the pile and possibly not sticking around and it is frequently in the latter context that I have seen conflicts arise. Who knows what happened here, but it is a rare and valuable secretary who knows relevant regulations better than even a trainee lawyer. The secretary will have seen more of legal practice, yes. They will not have had to recently pass the professional conduct exams that the trainee has nor make decisions about files at even the level of the trainee. If the argument here concerned the secretary correctly advising a trainee solicitor of the relevant regulations for the good of the firm and the trainee resisting that guidance then some people here may need to eat their words, but I'll eat my hat.

I actually agree with a few points which you make, but please reread my last paragraph.

fruitedeli

andygb wrote: »

No, she may well have been better than you. I hope that you didn't send letters out to clients and mix up "that" and "than".;)
In my quite vast experience, "junior" solicitors or trainees can be good or bad, or anything in between, the same of course applies to other members of staff.
If a new, inexperienced member of staff needs putting right, then that can be done by anyone.
I would love you to point out to me something which I may have said, which would be grounds for dismissal:rotfl:

Wrong. Your job description needs to include the ability to manage/supervise others, and a legal secretary does not have and probably never will have the authority to manage/supervise a trainee solicitor. Doing this will lead to dismissal. Depending on the circumstances it can be viewed as gross misconduct or simply misconduct that shouldn't be repeated.

PHILANTHROPIST

fruitedeli wrote: »

Wrong. Your job description needs to include the ability to manage/supervise others, and a legal secretary does not have and probably never will have the authority to manage/supervise a trainee solicitor. Doing this will lead to dismissal. Depending on the circumstances it can be viewed as gross misconduct or simply misconduct that shouldn't be repeated.

What has happened to the OP !?

Acc72

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

What has happened to the OP !?

You were warned, as early as the third post !