Compromise Agreements - Help??

fruitedeli

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

The Legal Ombudsman form independent decisions re whether or not a regulated solicitor has provided a suitable standard of service.

Your cynical view is in reality not credible, but you are of course entitled to give it. My cynical view is based on years of painful experience dealing with solicitors. Some are good. Most are average. Some are bad. Most are arrogant. Very few accept constructive criticism.

Arrogance is claiming my view is 'cynical' and 'not credible' while trying to claim your limited experience and subjective view of solicitors represents how majority of them act. Like barristers, some are good some are bad. You shouldn't portray solicitors as mostly incompetent.

Poppie68

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

The Legal Ombudsman form independent decisions re whether or not a regulated solicitor has provided a suitable standard of service.

Your cynical view is in reality not credible, but you are of course entitled to give it. My cynical view is based on years of painful experience dealing with solicitors. Some are good. Most are average. Some are bad. Most are arrogant. Very few accept constructive criticism.

Your above childish rant doesn't come across very professional expecially as you claim to be a lawyer....maybe you were beaten a little to often in the court room by a 'lowly solicitor'?:)


Originally posted on another thread:

My feedback remains as before, but I speak as a lawyer and sometimes miss the more practical alternatives which other members contribute.

tomtontom

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Most are arrogant. Very few accept constructive criticism.

The phrase pot calling kettle black springs to mind

PHILANTHROPIST

tomtontom wrote: »

The phrase pot calling kettle black springs to mind

Yes Tom, you and recent posters must surely be right. Please accept my apologies for standing up for my legitimate beliefs and causing you and others to enter into an internecine debate.

From hereon in I will be more submissive and allow you to continue to educate us. Thank you kindly.

LegalSec

"Why agree to a settlement agreement if not happy with the settlement?"

Because of time limits. I had 3 months to issue a claim and the offer made was with only a few days before the deadline. Had I issued the claim then any payout would have been put back for several months pending my case either going to the Tribunal or being settled just before the hearing date.

getmore4less

LegalSec wrote: »

"Why agree to a settlement agreement if not happy with the settlement?"

Because of time limits. I had 3 months to issue a claim and the offer made was with only a few days before the deadline. Had I issued the claim then any payout would have been put back for several months pending my case either going to the Tribunal or being settled just before the hearing date.

You should have put the claim in sooner, if you really had one.

standard practice to use negotiations to use up ET time limits.

The counter is to put in the claim early to speed up the settlement.