Must solicitors obey any ethics?

sassyblue

Our firm never did criminal matters, I feel I missed out   

Mickey666

AskAsk said:

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.

I can't see how that that can be correct as it would require the solicitor to pre-judge the case and, as you rightly point out, that's for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.
Thus, in your example, the solicitor might well advise their client to claim on their insurance but if the client insisted on suing then the solicitor would follow the client's instruction.

In the example I mentioned, this is pretty much what happened.  There were a number of parties involved in the dispute and the client insisted on pursuing just one of them.  All the legal advice was that the client would not be able to win a case against that party but they couldn't actually stop him.  They had to follow their client's instruction however misguided it turned out to be.

Ted_Bloke

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.

AskAsk, the point is there. You say "... they would not have advised..." The point is I do not know what they have advised. I only know the claim that has been made. Part of it, only part, concerns an amount of money. There could be disagreement about what is justified, but I think anyone can recognise what is an absurd amount of money for a particular case. Coming from the person in question I might not be that surprised, but to see it conveyed by her lawyer seems like a sort of endorsement. My first feeling was astonishment that a lawyer would actually transmit such a claim. Hence my question about whether lawyers must or usually do transmit whatever rubbish clients instruct them to. 

So it was the question of the principle of solicitors' duties, not asking for advice. I think some answers are giving me a good idea, for example the phrase "wide discretion", or the examples mentioned by Mickey666 and TBagpuss.

 Concerning solicitors' tactics I have noted that the ones I am up against have a somewhat politely aggressive tone with implied threats, peremptory demands for replies within a week although they are two months behind in supplying requested information that they have to do, and not as yet indicating legal basis of some of their demands. I suspect they are using psychological tactics and bluff in order to help their client. But nothing could be put down as actually unprofessional conduct etc.

For those who say they can't advise without knowing more, you can't advise anyway (as one of you states in his Sig) and anyway judgements have, as the saying goes, to take into consideration the entire circumstances not just an aspect that I might reveal. But entire circumstances get very specific and involve others. So I don't think at the moment I even should reveal more.

AskAsk

if you have buildings insurance, there is often a legal helpline that you could call and ask.  they will be able to tell you if the claims holds any merit.  from my experience, solicitors would ask you to send information to them and they would assess if there is a possibility of a claim and advise you on whether to go ahead with the claim, that is, whether you have any chance of winning the claim.

they would charge you for this assessment and advice.  if you would like to go ahead with the claim then they will charge for the work involved in that.  how honest a solicitor is when they advice you of the possibility of winning is probably dependent on the practice.  my experience with solicitors is that they don't tend to be cowboys, like your estate agent, who would tell you lies to get you to instruct them.  they do tend to be upfront about risks and costs.  i find solicitors can be incompetent, but they don't tend to be dishonest.

AskAsk

Mickey666 said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I can't see how that that can be correct as it would require the solicitor to pre-judge the case and, as you rightly point out, that's for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.
Thus, in your example, the solicitor might well advise their client to claim on their insurance but if the client insisted on suing then the solicitor would follow the client's instruction.

In the example I mentioned, this is pretty much what happened.  There were a number of parties involved in the dispute and the client insisted on pursuing just one of them.  All the legal advice was that the client would not be able to win a case against that party but they couldn't actually stop him.  They had to follow their client's instruction however misguided it turned out to be.

if there is no legal recource for a claim, like you can not claim against the flat owner upstairs under law, then i would expect the solicitor not to act for the client as they would be looked badly upon by the judge for wasting the court's time on a claim that can not be made under law.

they would only act for the client if there was a chance of winning, even if that is remote, but not if it is no legal grounds for the claim.  they would be wasting the court's time and this would not be looked well upon.

Mickey666

AskAsk said:

Mickey666 said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I can't see how that that can be correct as it would require the solicitor to pre-judge the case and, as you rightly point out, that's for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.
Thus, in your example, the solicitor might well advise their client to claim on their insurance but if the client insisted on suing then the solicitor would follow the client's instruction.

In the example I mentioned, this is pretty much what happened.  There were a number of parties involved in the dispute and the client insisted on pursuing just one of them.  All the legal advice was that the client would not be able to win a case against that party but they couldn't actually stop him.  They had to follow their client's instruction however misguided it turned out to be.

if there is no legal recource for a claim, like you can not claim against the flat owner upstairs under law, then i would expect the solicitor not to act for the client as they would be looked badly upon by the judge for wasting the court's time on a claim that can not be made under law.

they would only act for the client if there was a chance of winning, even if that is remote, but not if it is no legal grounds for the claim.  they would be wasting the court's time and this would not be looked well upon.

I accept that solicitors might choose not to accept someone as a client.  I also understand that courts don't like vexatious or frivolous claims.  However, I think it would be a dangerous precedent to actively prevent anyone from pursuing legal action if they really wanted to.  It's like the old saying that 'everyone deserves their day in court' and even if a solicitor refuses to take a case the client is still able to pursue legal action as a litigant in person.  Indeed, a LIP is likely to take up even more of the court's time than one who has legal representation, due to unfamiliarity with the rules and due process, and I understand that courts are generally obliged to make some allowances, such as explaining procedures etc that would not normally be required in cases where there is professional legal representation.    So, taking into account that everyone has a right to legal representation, what then?  My feeling is that there will always be some solicitors out there who would take on a 'hopeless' case and I'd be amazed if the rules prevent it.

AskAsk

Mickey666 said:

AskAsk said:

Mickey666 said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I can't see how that that can be correct as it would require the solicitor to pre-judge the case and, as you rightly point out, that's for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.
Thus, in your example, the solicitor might well advise their client to claim on their insurance but if the client insisted on suing then the solicitor would follow the client's instruction.

In the example I mentioned, this is pretty much what happened.  There were a number of parties involved in the dispute and the client insisted on pursuing just one of them.  All the legal advice was that the client would not be able to win a case against that party but they couldn't actually stop him.  They had to follow their client's instruction however misguided it turned out to be.

if there is no legal recource for a claim, like you can not claim against the flat owner upstairs under law, then i would expect the solicitor not to act for the client as they would be looked badly upon by the judge for wasting the court's time on a claim that can not be made under law.

they would only act for the client if there was a chance of winning, even if that is remote, but not if it is no legal grounds for the claim.  they would be wasting the court's time and this would not be looked well upon.

I accept that solicitors might choose not to accept someone as a client.  I also understand that courts don't like vexatious or frivolous claims.  However, I think it would be a dangerous precedent to actively prevent anyone from pursuing legal action if they really wanted to.  It's like the old saying that 'everyone deserves their day in court' and even if a solicitor refuses to take a case the client is still able to pursue legal action as a litigant in person.  Indeed, a LIP is likely to take up even more of the court's time than one who has legal representation, due to unfamiliarity with the rules and due process, and I understand that courts are generally obliged to make some allowances, such as explaining procedures etc that would not normally be required in cases where there is professional legal representation.    So, taking into account that everyone has a right to legal representation, what then?  My feeling is that there will always be some solicitors out there who would take on a 'hopeless' case and I'd be amazed if the rules prevent it.

hopeless and no legal grounds are two different things.  for example, can you imagine any solicitors would take me on as a client if i wanted to evict the queen from buckingham palace as i don't like her and i don't feel she deserves to live there, even though she owns it! 

Mickey666

An interesting case, perhaps Rumpole would take it on?
I take your point, but perhaps I see it more as a philosophical issue than a strictly legal one.  After all, it's not illegal to be an anarchist (I think) so why should someone be prevented from arguing their case against a monarchy in a court of law?

Frivolous and/or vexatious?  Undoubdtedly.  Waste of court time?  Almost certainly.  A legal right to be heard and be judged by the law of the land?  I would hope so!

AskAsk

Mickey666 said:

An interesting case, perhaps Rumpole would take it on?
I take your point, but perhaps I see it more as a philosophical issue than a strictly legal one.  After all, it's not illegal to be an anarchist (I think) so why should someone be prevented from arguing their case against a monarchy in a court of law?

Frivolous and/or vexatious?  Undoubdtedly.  Waste of court time?  Almost certainly.  A legal right to be heard and be judged by the law of the land?  I would hope so!

the problem would be that the justice system would be in chaos as it would be clogged up with idiots trying to evict the queen and prevent those with a legitimate claim from having their case heard.  the OP is stating that the case against him is totally absurd, in a similar way that this eviction would be totally absurd.

it's a bit like calling the police because your cat is stuck in the neighbour's tree! 

fred246

In that case you would need the fire brigade.