Must solicitors obey any ethics?

sassyblue

Ted_Bloke said:

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.

You don’t need to think about what they’ve advised their client, the point is - as a few of us have said - the Solicitor taking on the case feels his client's matter DOES have merit.  By writing to you her lawyer is not endorsing her claim either, they are simply putting the case forward for you to dispute or agree.  There’s an outside chance they have advised their client the case is without any merit but if the client was insistent they may write out but if that were the case they’d only send one or two letters and not pursue the matter further IMO.

You say the letters are aggressive and threatening with an element of bluff involved but that’s how civil litigation works.  The lawyers at the firm I work in would set deadlines for reply and take their time responding themselves, all totally normal. You can totally ignore their letters if you choose and then it’s up to their client to decide to pursue the matter through the courts, although you run the risk of them doing so with cost implications for you should you lose.

As for the money involved of course they’re going to try it on for a larger sum of money at first.

Mickey666

AskAsk said:

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! 

No it wouldn't because very few people are truly idiots who would pursue such things against legal advice.   My point is that a truly egalitarian legal system would not prevent anyone from bringing any dispute before the courts.  Besides, there are loads of cases where there have been miscarriages of justice so the legal system is hardly perfect itself, so I don't see why it should not allow the odd eccentric their time in court if they have the time, the inclination and the deep pockets to pay for it.

Besides, your analogy is flawed.  Yes, it's somewhat absurd to call the police about your cat stuck in a neighbour's tree, but no one would stop you from doing so.

es5595

Since you’ve posted in the ‘family and relationships’ board, and asked about a solicitor code of ethics, you’ll find ex-partners seem to manage to get solicitors to write very strange letters, with not a shred of evidence provided, and that have not a hope of standing up on court on the grounds of both child-related matters and divorce.

If you head over to mumsnets divorce boards, you’ll see some fabulous letters that have been received. As long as their client is paying, and it’s not breaking the law, they seem to be more than happy to send them. 

sassyblue

es5595 said:

Since you’ve posted in the ‘family and relationships’ board, and asked about a solicitor code of ethics, you’ll find ex-partners seem to manage to get solicitors to write very strange letters, with not a shred of evidence provided, and that have not a hope of standing up on court on the grounds of both child-related matters and divorce.

If you head over to mumsnets divorce boards, you’ll see some fabulous letters that have been received. As long as their client is paying, and it’s not breaking the law, they seem to be more than happy to send them. 

Like what for instance?  I see comments made like this by disgruntled people but there’s always a reason for such letters being sent.  Working for a family lawyer I’ve seen a husband get his friend to 'value' his extremely expensive car and watches far, far below the market value of them to try and lessen the marital pot.  This was after he swore he had sold the watches many years before, luckily the wife had taken photos of them prior to walking out.  Another, a wealthy wife ran a business and was very good with money absolutely denied she had other bank accounts than the ones she initially admitted to.  Unfortunately, in her Form E, complete with accompanying bank statements, there were payments of large amounts to another account in her name.

when it comes to divorce and finances sometimes all bets are off and people will lie through their teeth.

burlingtonfl6

Solicitors are as slimy as a used car salesman yet operate under the disguise of respectability 

Sandtree

Mickey666 said:
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.

To be able to appeal a case either the original judge must give you leave or the higher court must agree to hear the case. An appeal is not just another throw of the dice with a hope of a better outcome. On the basis the courts agreed to hear an appeal then clearly there case was not as baseless as you consider it even if the ultimate outcome was unsuccessful. 

A solicitors duty is to their client and effectively the profession; they have no direct duty to the counterparty(s) to the action... though indirectly may by their duty to the profession. Most solicitors will advise their client on prospects of success however the decision to proceed or not is ultimately the clients... that said clearly a solicitor can refuse to take on a case if they believe the prospects of success are so remote. This sort of thing is clearly expert judgement and what one may consider a certain no another may think has some prospects.

Having decided to act for their client a solicitor will not pull their punches and typically there is significant mud slinging in the hope that at least some of it sticks. Having defended motor claims for years a straight forward rear end collision normally spawns an initial letter from sols with at least a dozen accusations with an and/or between each (driving too fast, breaking too late, driving too close, failing to pay attention, endangering life etc)