Must solicitors obey any ethics?

Ted_Bloke

Here seems the most relevant forum considering background to this question.

Suppose you have a just ridiculous claim in law made against you.

E.g. involving ridiculous sums of money, where it should be evident to anyone, including the solicitor transmitting the claim, that they rest on no documentation and are intrinsically unbelievable.

Receiving, or expecting or just being aware of through the coinvolvement of others, ridiculous claims one is inclined to think the following:

The solicitor is aware that claim is far-fetched and may have so advised the client, but is obliged to transmit any damn demand or claim that the client still insists on pursuing;

Or: the solicitor, even knowing the absurd nature of the claims, is entitled to use them as tactics, as intimidation even, and to go along with or even suggest him/herself their use as tactics. All's fair in love and law?

I remember being told that solicitors have an official code of conduct that fills vast volumes. But that this mostly concerns their relations with their clients, as if they had no more general obligations.

I realise that what falls within definitions of 'ridiculous', 'absurd', 'far-fetched' etc. could in the particular cases be argued about. And also they may be just one part of a complicated case. But I think certain things could be demonstrable beyond much doubt.

Now think of the position of one who receives such a claim or expects to. First thought: this is ridiculous, I will write an indignant or sarcastic reply. Second thought: there are traps here. Don't answer. Ah no, If I don't defend, reply, I might leaving myself open, be putting myself in the wrong even. I'm not a legal expert, what any court might decide is always unpredictable, so I'm obliged to employ a solicitor. Already pressure.

Other thought, instead of defend, counterattack. Word 'vexatious' comes to mind. But what exactly defines 'vexatious' legally? Majority of failed claims are not counted vexatious.

Anyway not to start talking about everything, are there any rules and limits for what a solicitor can try on?

Mickey666

But solicitors don't 'try on' anything do they?  Surely they only act as instructed by their clients, as long as it's within the law?
Solicitors advise their clients, they don't command them.

Morrigan_2020

What has actually happened?  People will be able to provide better advice if they know the reality. 

naedanger

Ted_Bloke said:

Here seems the most relevant forum considering background to this question.

Suppose you have a just ridiculous claim in law made against you.

E.g. involving ridiculous sums of money, where it should be evident to anyone, including the solicitor transmitting the claim, that they rest on no documentation and are intrinsically unbelievable.

Receiving, or expecting or just being aware of through the coinvolvement of others, ridiculous claims one is inclined to think the following:

The solicitor is aware that claim is far-fetched and may have so advised the client, but is obliged to transmit any damn demand or claim that the client still insists on pursuing;

Or: the solicitor, even knowing the absurd nature of the claims, is entitled to use them as tactics, as intimidation even, and to go along with or even suggest him/herself their use as tactics. All's fair in love and law?

I remember being told that solicitors have an official code of conduct that fills vast volumes. But that this mostly concerns their relations with their clients, as if they had no more general obligations.

I realise that what falls within definitions of 'ridiculous', 'absurd', 'far-fetched' etc. could in the particular cases be argued about. And also they may be just one part of a complicated case. But I think certain things could be demonstrable beyond much doubt.

Now think of the position of one who receives such a claim or expects to. First thought: this is ridiculous, I will write an indignant or sarcastic reply. Second thought: there are traps here. Don't answer. Ah no, If I don't defend, reply, I might leaving myself open, be putting myself in the wrong even. I'm not a legal expert, what any court might decide is always unpredictable, so I'm obliged to employ a solicitor. Already pressure.

Other thought, instead of defend, counterattack. Word 'vexatious' comes to mind. But what exactly defines 'vexatious' legally? Majority of failed claims are not counted vexatious.

Anyway not to start talking about everything, are there any rules and limits for what a solicitor can try on?

There are ethical considerations that lawyers have to follow - for example they are not allowed to lie to the court. They may suspect what their client is telling a pack of lies but that is different from the lawyer lying. (If a client told their lawyer they were guilty the lawyer could not argue in court their client was innocent. They could perhaps argue on a technicality e.g. the offence is time-barred, they weren't read their rights etc. But if the client wanted the lawyer to argue they were innocent they would need to find another lawyer and not tell that lawyer they were guilty.)

However while there are ethical considerations they obviously have a wide latitude to issue claims that the other party (and indeed independent observers) might consider 'ridiculous', 'absurd', 'far-fetched'. Unfortunately there is no simple answer to receiving such a claim. If you think it is a completely hollow threat you could ignore it, but they could still take you to court, in which case you might be best advised to get your own solicitor.

Regarding vexatious litigation, see the following link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation 

AskAsk

Morrigan_2020 said:

What has actually happened?  People will be able to provide better advice if they know the reality. 

this.  a lot of information from the OP venting anger and frustration but the question is not clear as to what the claim is so it is not possible to advise.

OP - you may think it is an absurd claim, but the solicitors must have thought there was a reasonable chance of the claim otherwise they would not have adviced their client to make the claim.  i do think a solicitor would advise their client as to the possibibility of a positive outcome of the claim as they would have been paid to give this advice.

sassyblue

Morrigan_2020 said:

What has actually happened?  People will be able to provide better advice if they know the reality. 

Well here are the principles Solicitors have to follow
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

But how can anyone possibly help you if we don’t know what’s happened?

What seems ridiculous or vexatious to you obviously doesn’t to the person who has engaged a Solicitor to contact you.  The Solicitor obviously feels their client’s case has merit.

ratechaser

Oooh go on you tease... you know you want to tell us really 

WickedWitch123

That was so hard to read and i've no idea what is actually being asked 

Mickey666

AskAsk said:

Morrigan_2020 said:

What has actually happened?  People will be able to provide better advice if they know the reality. 

this.  a lot of information from the OP venting anger and frustration but the question is not clear as to what the claim is so it is not possible to advise.

OP - you may think it is an absurd claim, but the solicitors must have thought there was a reasonable chance of the claim otherwise they would not have adviced their client to make the claim.  i do think a solicitor would advise their client as to the possibibility of a positive outcome of the claim as they would have been paid to give this advice.

To be fair, I've known people who have ignored their solicitor's advice and insisted on pursuing a claim.  I know of one case in particular where the solicitor advised that the claim would fail bu the client insisted and so the solicitor had to comply with his client's instruction.  The case duly failed.  The client then insisted on an appeal and again the solicitor advised against it but again the client insisted.  The appeal duly failed.  The client then engaged a QC to appeal to the lords (or whatever the next stage is).  The QC advised against it, the client insisted and so the QC began preparing the case.  In the event, the client died before the case came back to court though he would have undoubtedly lost.  The bill for all this misguided action came to almost £30k.

So, you cannot assume that a case has any merit just because there is a solicitor is pursuing the claim.

AskAsk

Mickey666 said:

AskAsk said:

Morrigan_2020 said:

What has actually happened?  People will be able to provide better advice if they know the reality. 

this.  a lot of information from the OP venting anger and frustration but the question is not clear as to what the claim is so it is not possible to advise.

OP - you may think it is an absurd claim, but the solicitors must have thought there was a reasonable chance of the claim otherwise they would not have adviced their client to make the claim.  i do think a solicitor would advise their client as to the possibibility of a positive outcome of the claim as they would have been paid to give this advice.

To be fair, I've known people who have ignored their solicitor's advice and insisted on pursuing a claim.  I know of one case in particular where the solicitor advised that the claim would fail bu the client insisted and so the solicitor had to comply with his client's instruction.  The case duly failed.  The client then insisted on an appeal and again the solicitor advised against it but again the client insisted.  The appeal duly failed.  The client then engaged a QC to appeal to the lords (or whatever the next stage is).  The QC advised against it, the client insisted and so the QC began preparing the case.  In the event, the client died before the case came back to court though he would have undoubtedly lost.  The bill for all this misguided action came to almost £30k.

So, you cannot assume that a case has any merit just because there is a solicitor is pursuing the claim.

i may not have phrased my response correctly.  i mean that there is legal grounds for a claim but whether it is successful or not would depend on the judge and the evidence.  so what i mean is that the solicitor would not do the claim if there is no legal grounds to allow the claim.  so for example, if there a was leak from the flat upstairs (and it was already known that it was not due to the owner being negligent) and you wanted to claim against the owner of the flat but in law you can only claim against your own insurance, then the solicitors would not put in a claim for their client as there is no legal grounds for such a claim.

or your dog got through your fence and into the neighbour's fence down the road and fell into a big hole in the neighbour's garden and got injured and you wanted to claim against the neighbour for leaving a hole in their garden, which had caused injury to your dog.  this would not be something that a solicitor would be able to make a claim on as there is no legal grounds for such a claim.

TBagpuss

The short answer is yes, Solicitors and other lawyers are bound by rules of conduct and ethical behavior.

However, simply because a case may not appear to have much legal merit of very good chances of success, doesn't mean that a lawyer is acting unethically in pursuing it, and in some cases and some types of claim it isn't possible to accurately judge how much prospect there is of succeeding until initial steps are taken - for instance, to take a fairly simple case, suppose you trip and break your leg falling due to a broken paving stone or missing man hole cover, the lawyer you consult can't just how much chance there is of your claim against the council succeeding until the have been i  touch with the council to get copies of their records showing when the road was last inspected, whether the missing manhole cover / broken paving stone had been reported and so on. It's entirely possible that the claim is doomed to failure because there is a witness who saw you remove the manhole cover, give it to your mate to flog as scrap metal, then deliberately walk into the resulting hole, but they won't know that until they start the process.

Equally, people lie, even to their lawyers, and the lawyer can only go on what they are told. 

A lawyer is not allowed to break the law, even if instructed to do so, and cannot lie to third parties, but  they can't prevent someone pursuing a hopeless case if they want to.

As Naedanger points out, a lawyer is not the judge - their role is to follow their client's instructions and to advise their client, ot to prevent the client from pursuing a claim if they want to. 

I remember sitting in to observe a solicitor talking to a client at the police station, once, where the client was adamant that they had not committed the offence. The lawyer pointed out to them that there were several highly respectable witnesses, some very incriminating items in the suspects car which happened to exactly match the description of the things which had been stolen, and that the suspects claim that he had been wearing a thick wooly balaclava and leather gloves for warmth was perhaps not entirely convincing, given that we were in the middle of a record-breaking heatwave. He also explained the benefits of early admissions, when it comes to sentencing. The client was having none of it, insisted on denying any involvement, and so of course that's the way it went..