Money left to me in a will, solicitors want me to pay them for releasing it!? HELP!

fred246

There is a town near us where the most famous crook is a solicitor. Obviously nobody can say who it is because they would be taken to court. So it's not on any media. Just word of mouth. Everybody seems to know of him. Into every scam you can imagine. When you are little you think of a crook as a naughty man with a swag bag. As you get older you realize the best crooks don't look like that.

Malthusian

Uxb1 said:

No good blaming the executor out of hand now either unless we can discover how the trust was set up 10 years ago and how expenses incurred in managing it and winding it up are meant to be accounted for.

I inferred from the OP's post that the trust was never properly set up at all - as there was no mention of who the Trustees were. If the Trustees existed they should have been the one contacting the OP when they reached 21 (some would say 18, 16 in Scotland).

If the current solicitors were to be the Trustees, the money should have been handed to them by the executors when the estate was wound up, not a decade later when the beneficiary turned 21. If the Trustees were never given the money by the executors, that's on the executors.

Supporting this is the sentence "After 2 years of chasing and them finally getting their sh*t together, they have got the paperwork sorted with the executors". If the executors had done their job correctly, there should be no reason for the solicitors to contact them in the present day. The OP's Trustees would have already had the money for the best part of a decade.

One way or another it sounds like this firm of solicitors has been brought in to clear up a mess left by the executors, for which they will need paying. The fact that this firm of solicitors helped write the Will is irrelevant, as others have said. That job was done and paid for at the time. This is a different job.

Newly_retired

Surely one of the key factors here is that the original solicitor retired and a different firm has had to pick up the pieces. However it is the responsibility of the Trustees, who may or may not be the same people as the executors, to ensure the Trust is paid out. If a specific sum was held in the Trust it should have been invested over the years. Advice should have been taken on this issue by the Trustees. If the Trustees failed to do their duty, the beneficiary should not be the one to lose out. 

Who instructed these solicitors to do this specific piece of work?

It would be interesting to know the amount involved and the relationship of the OP to the Trustees / executors, as this will no doubt affect how the OP proceeds. 

A complaint may well be the way ahead but it is not clear who instructed the solicitor and on what basis.

RetSol

Malthusian said:

Uxb1 said:

No good blaming the executor out of hand now either unless we can discover how the trust was set up 10 years ago and how expenses incurred in managing it and winding it up are meant to be accounted for.

I inferred from the OP's post that the trust was never properly set up at all - as there was no mention of who the Trustees were. If the Trustees existed they should have been the one contacting the OP when they reached 21 (some would say 18, 16 in Scotland).

If the current solicitors were to be the Trustees, the money should have been handed to them by the executors when the estate was wound up, not a decade later when the beneficiary turned 21. If the Trustees were never given the money by the executors, that's on the executors.

Supporting this is the sentence "After 2 years of chasing and them finally getting their sh*t together, they have got the paperwork sorted with the executors". If the executors had done their job correctly, there should be no reason for the solicitors to contact them in the present day. The OP's Trustees would have already had the money for the best part of a decade.

One way or another it sounds like this firm of solicitors has been brought in to clear up a mess left by the executors, for which they will need paying. The fact that this firm of solicitors helped write the Will is irrelevant, as others have said. That job was done and paid for at the time. This is a different job.

I agree that the executors/trustees (whoever they are) have gone missing.  It sounds like the Will stipulated that the OP would get the cash on turning 21 and that the trustees have not followed up, leaving the OP to sort it out.  This is a different job, as you say.  The question is: who pays for it?  If I were the OP, I might cough up the £250 and move on.  But: I don't know all the surrounding facts.  Horses for courses, as they say.

dd95

fred246 said:

There is a town near us where the most famous crook is a solicitor. Obviously nobody can say who it is because they would be taken to court. So it's not on any media. Just word of mouth. Everybody seems to know of him. Into every scam you can imagine. When you are little you think of a crook as a naughty man with a swag bag. As you get older you realize the best crooks don't look like that.

right so all solicitors are then. It never ceases to amaze me how clients expect you to be at their disposal at every hour of the day and completely disregard the fact that you have hundreds of clients, then have the cheek to contest a bill when they knowingly sign up to your retainer

bogleboogle

dd95 said:

fred246 said:

There is a town near us where the most famous crook is a solicitor. Obviously nobody can say who it is because they would be taken to court. So it's not on any media. Just word of mouth. Everybody seems to know of him. Into every scam you can imagine. When you are little you think of a crook as a naughty man with a swag bag. As you get older you realize the best crooks don't look like that.

right so all solicitors are then. It never ceases to amaze me how clients expect you to be at their disposal at every hour of the day and completely disregard the fact that you have hundreds of clients, then have the cheek to contest a bill when they knowingly sign up to your retainer

Boring anti-solicitor generalisations aside, the issue here is that OP seems surprised with the bill of costs and has no idea about the firm's internal complaints handling procedure. A good solicitor should have acted in a way that prevented both of these problems. 

BananaRepublic

A few comments, maybe helpful, most likely not. 

You don’t know what the agreement was with the original solicitor so you don’t know if the original payment included the task of releasing the money to you. 

This will be a difficult issue to prove unless you can find the original instructions. 

Solicitors charge a fortune. £300 might sound like a lot of money, but that can easily be their hourly rate. They charge a small fortune for dealing with a letter. 

Complaining to the Law Society is IMO useless. It’s set up to handle  the most blatant and egregious transgressions. 

I’ve dealt with solicitors after my mum died. I worked with two, one seemed professional and efficient, albeit charging a fortune. I have no reason to doubt the other one. However a few years later the practice closed when one partner returned out to be a crook and stole some money. The solicitor for the person we were in dispute with (boundary dispute) came across as callous, I was quite shocked by his insensitive behaviour. There is an old joke. Why don’t sharks attack solicitors? Answer: professional courtesy. I suspect that a solicitor in many areas of law needs to maintain a cold detached attitude, something a less cold blooded person would find difficult. Winning a dispute against someone versed in the law would be very difficult. 

In short, unless you have the original instructions, swallow your pride and pay up. 

steampowered

bogleboogle said:

Solicitors are under an obligation to make clear to you from the outset (and subsequently as the matter progresses) how their work for you will be billed under CCS 8.7. Solicitors are also under an obligation to make clear to you - from the outset - information regarding their complaints procedure under CCS 8.3 (applicable to law firms as a result of CCF 7.1) 

From what you've written, it would appear that the solicitors concerned have not met these duties. As a result, it might be worth pursuing a complaint to the solicitors' firm. 

I should make clear that this does not constitute legal advice and is my opinion given in a personal capacity based on the limited facts presented. 

All true, but I suspect in case the solicitor's client in this case is the estate (acting by the executors).

I could be wrong, but I suspect the solicitors would have sent a client care letter explaining their charges to the executors. It may be that the bill should be addressed to the estate rather than to the Op - though the practical outcome is the same either way. 

TBC15

Time for the OP to pitch up with a bit more info before we tear each other apart based on what if's

DF97

Thank you everyone, I don't really want to go down the court route if I can help it. Will cost me more than it's worth I can imagine.

The biggest delay was the fact the solicitor that retired was an executor, and the solicitors that took over his client base couldn't track him down, he'd moved out of the area, hadn't got the same number etc... The other executor (my nana's sister) between the will being written and my 21st birthday went blind and has had many strokes. She has constant care around the clock (my mother has now replaced her as executor as their is a trust for my sister when she is 21 too). 

I did the majority of the chasing because the solicitors would just send letters to my nanas executor (never in braille!) which was pointless, and they would ring me to pass messages on to her. They weren't willing to make the effort for her really. She did what she could, for which I am grateful. 

The money isn't a problem, it's just I've had money come to me in trust before and never had to a pay a penny. Why was there no charge there but there is this time round? That's what i'm trying to get my head around.