Challenging Solicitor's Bill for Probate

Mojisola

Pauline007 wrote: »

There was only one Executor. The issue isn't really the solicitor's cost, but the fact that it's even there! The executor was to do all this work, and said she was doing it.

We'd expected she would seek professional advice, which is prudent, and also to have the solicitor undertake Probate, but after that, it was down to her.

Executors, I believe, have a duty to the beneficiaries, and by simply passing over her 'job' to the solicitor, she has run up a totally unnecessary bill.

I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to say she should have done the work herself and not employed a solicitor. She was the executor and decided to use a solicitor - fully within her rights to do so.

Pauline007

Crabapple wrote: »

Residuary beneficiaries should always be provided with Accounts to show how their share is calculated. They are entitled to see them even if they are not automatically provided. Some may not be bothered.

My concern here would be that there were two Executors but only one instructed this Firm. If your husband was co-Executor what did he sign to confirm that the other Executor could go it alone?

Or was it a case that he thought they were obtaining the Grant and everything else would be done by the other party?

It is very poor form not to get both Executors to sign agreement to terms of business which would have set out costs, and I thought it was an obligation on a law firm to provide copies of this information to all the residuary beneficiaries at an early stage too, but not sure if it is more good practice rather than a requirement.

They should also not hold onto your cheque. Only the Executors need to approve the Accounts, and if they have not done so then there should not be money paid out to any beneficiaries. If you succeeded in any argument over costs then the share could only go up, not down.

That said, I don't think those costs are excessive based on how Solicitors would usually charge. If they had been named as Executors the fee would undoubtedly have been higher.

Hi, and thanks for the reply. There was only the one executor, and she, and the solicitor, told us that she was consulting the solicitor, prudently we thought, for advice, and to have the solicitor deal with probate. But we had no idea she simply handed over everything to the solicitor to deal with. Had the executor simply carried out her job, then we'd have a much smaller bill! We offered to take over the role, but she said she was happy to carry it out herself. My mother-in-law expressly made sure that the solicitor was NOT the executor as she did not want solicitors to run up big legal bills, so her wishes have been completely ignored.

Having emailed the solicitor on Monday, and getting no reply, I'm just going to ring them this afternoon and see what's happening.

Pauline007

Hardly in the interests of the beneficiaries.

Pauline007

g6jns wrote: »

The immediate issue is the solicitor demanding that a beneficiary agrre the accounts are correct before being paid. AFAIK beneficiaries are under no obligation to do this. Indeed I don't think executors are obliged to p0ublish the estae accounts at all. What bother me in this case is that the solicitor seems to be behaving in an inappropriate manner which makes alarm bells ring. I would expect the solicitor to be quite open about the way the estate has been handled.

Crabapple wrote: »

Residuary beneficiaries should always be provided with Accounts to show how their share is calculated. They are entitled to see them even if they are not automatically provided. Some may not be bothered.

My concern here would be that there were two Executors but only one instructed this Firm. If your husband was co-Executor what did he sign to confirm that the other Executor could go it alone?

Or was it a case that he thought they were obtaining the Grant and everything else would be done by the other party?

It is very poor form not to get both Executors to sign agreement to terms of business which would have set out costs, and I thought it was an obligation on a law firm to provide copies of this information to all the residuary beneficiaries at an early stage too, but not sure if it is more good practice rather than a requirement.

They should also not hold onto your cheque. Only the Executors need to approve the Accounts, and if they have not done so then there should not be money paid out to any beneficiaries. If you succeeded in any argument over costs then the share could only go up, not down.

That said, I don't think those costs are excessive based on how Solicitors would usually charge. If they had been named as Executors the fee would undoubtedly have been higher.

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to say she should have done the work herself and not employed a solicitor. She was the executor and decided to use a solicitor - fully within her rights to do so.

Hardly in the interests of the beneficiaries.

Mojisola

Pauline007 wrote: »

Hardly in the interests of the beneficiaries.

If the executor didn't feel that she was able to do the work to the standard required by law (for whatever reason), it would have been very much in the beneficiaries' interest to get the work done by a professional.

getmore4less

Pauline007 wrote: »

Hi, and thanks for the reply. There was only the one executor, and she, and the solicitor, told us that she was consulting the solicitor, prudently we thought, for advice, and to have the solicitor deal with probate. But we had no idea she simply handed over everything to the solicitor to deal with. Had the executor simply carried out her job, then we'd have a much smaller bill! We offered to take over the role, but she said she was happy to carry it out herself. My mother-in-law expressly made sure that the solicitor was NOT the executor as she did not want solicitors to run up big legal bills, so her wishes have been completely ignored.

Having emailed the solicitor on Monday, and getting no reply, I'm just going to ring them this afternoon and see what's happening.

You missunderstood what that means,

my interpretation is give them the full job to do.

Pauline007

Mojisola wrote: »

If the executor didn't feel that she was able to do the work to the standard required by law (for whatever reason), it would have been very much in the beneficiaries' interest to get the work done by a professional.

But then why not take up our offer to do all the legwork? I fully appreciate once someone sees the amount of work that needed to be done would be time-consuming, but if someone else offers to do it FOR FREE, then I feel she should have taken us up on the offer. At the very least, we should have been told.

Pauline007

getmore4less wrote: »

You missunderstood what that means,

my interpretation is give them the full job to do.

No, we discussed it all with her and she specifically meant the bit to deal with the Court, not all the ancilliary letters to various banks etc.

Mojisola

Pauline007 wrote: »

But then why not take up our offer to do all the legwork? I fully appreciate once someone sees the amount of work that needed to be done would be time-consuming, but if someone else offers to do it FOR FREE, then I feel she should have taken us up on the offer. At the very least, we should have been told.

Because you could have done the work but she would have had the legal responsibility if anything wasn't done properly. By employing a solicitor, she would be protected by the solicitor's insurance if mistakes were made.

She might also have thought that if the deceased wanted you to do the work, he/she would have appointed you as executors.

An executor doesn't have to tell beneficiaries about decisions or the progress of the estate.

I can understand that you're upset about the £6000 but the deceased chose to name the executor and she has fulfilled her obligations.

Pauline007

Mojisola wrote: »

Because you could have done the work but she would have had the legal responsibility if anything wasn't done properly. By employing a solicitor, she would be protected by the solicitor's insurance if mistakes were made.

She might also have thought that if the deceased wanted you to do the work, he/she would have appointed you as executors.

An executor doesn't have to tell beneficiaries about decisions or the progress of the estate.

I can understand that you're upset about the £6000 but the deceased chose to name the executor and she has fulfilled her obligations.

My mother-in-law amended her will to change the executor when she was in a hospice, and only because my husband, who was the original executor, was also being treated for cancer at the time. My main concern at present is actually getting hold of the cheque.