Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral


  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. As we have all offered our opinions' regarding the SRA etc. It is only fair groups and panels charged with scrutinizing them are allowed their say. The Legal Consumers Panel produced a report, outlined recommendation below, which analyzed the legal profession and endeavored to offer an in-depth approach as to how the legal profession should be scrutinized and monitored, Their findings seem to confirm that presented in papers delivered by eminent authorities in the legal field from renown universities such as Havard Law School, Georgetown Law Centre along with Thomson Reuters and
  2. The comments referring to 'you', me and your profession were aimed not at you but others who have commented having indicated that they are members of the legal profession, so it most certainly is not all about you. I never even suggested this was a total solution, but, a starting point to consider options as I consider the current system inappropriate, yet, all who have commented in the negative seem to want to remain with a closed mind and not consider ANY alternatives. Critiques of all natures can be both functional and informative, when looked at with a closed which is what I am s
  3. As feared you are looking at the negatives not even willing to consider any form of monitoring or upgrade of the service as it stands. If you were to only read what I stated, I stated that whatever was/is to be created and formed must alleviate all of the issues that you raise, do you not think there are people out there who create these type of products all of the time with the help of psychologists, please open up. To say that this is logistically impossible is only to put barriers in the way, this facility can be actioned in the most part automatically and filtered accordingly, by you
  4. Bazzas, many apologize for the delay, I did previously indicate that an APP of some kind could be used. This would ensure that every person that receives or commissions legal services can complete a critique regarding the service they have received, obviously and I cannot stress this enough before someone indicates the scenario of clients losing cases etc. If managed and drawn up correctly this can be made to form part of the code of practice, centrally managed and analyzed this would prevent in most cases long drawn out complaint procedures, reduced cost and continual monitoring of ALL legal
  5. Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the La
  6. Thank you for clarifying that point, perhaps I can once again offer my calculated view on these organisations in support of my initial post:- The LO - is only interested in covering the grounds of processes and procedures, i.e. have solictors followed the correct documented tasks if so, dismiss complaint. Not interested in contributing facts or truths. Their annual report makes interesting reading, 20000 issues raised, 2500 investigated, this does not mean resolved to the complainants satisfaction but 'resolved'. SRA - Data provided in my first post outlines the miniscule impact this organ
  7. Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?
  8. Could I please clarify the points above, solicitors and the legal profession are scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and LO.
  9. Steampowered, thanks for the reply, could you please expand on how exactly 'they' are monitored and scrutinized for my own clarity. All businesses rely on reputation so that is a given I feel, but exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?.
  10. Points understood, perhaps you can answer me a question: How are solicitors and members of the legal profession scrutinized and monitored?
  11. Whilst I consider my previous points indicate I do understand the points raised, your own comments support my original premise, that of lack or no accountability. To take the consultation conducted by the SRA, which you quote, apparently out of 10000 solicitors contacted to discuss and comment on matters of professionalism and public impression only 600, not even 10%, of your colleagues and fellow members saw fit to respond, what does that say of a profession supposedly trying to put it's house in order. After all the findings you find so offensive weren't even reported in the d
  12. Supervillain, having read your response along with the items outlined in the Law Gazette, does this not highlight the very points I raised in my original thread. Your response seems to suggest that you do not wish anyone to monitor or regulate your profession, that you consider you and your colleagues always do the correct and honest thing, unfortunately this is not true I am afraid. Having dealt with numerous 'law professionals' in my business and personal life I can honestly say that some do act as reported by the SRA, that is, to consider their 'general public' joe cl
  13. Ganymede, whilst my case was only a preface to my looking at this organization, there are many aspects which I am not able to discuss in an open forum, but, here are a few of the points I raised with the SRA. Inappropriate/wrong evidence offered in court, never seen or ratified by me, failed to call pertinent witnesses 'could not get hold of them' - I got hold of them in one phone call, Information/Evidence created by firm was not factually based so refused by courts to be submitted at trial, failed to act in my best interest at all times, firm driven by recovering their fees not truth/ev
  14. In response to Steampowered and Bazzas, as you will appreciate I am very well aware of what areas the SRA are deemed responsible for so to contradict your claim, I did not raise an issue relating to poor service, although that was obviously an outcome of the firms actions. The firm involved, and the senior partner particularly, violated their own contract of engagement along with the SRA principles of professionalism. I would ask respectfully that when offering support for this organization's conduct one forensically looks at the data provided. Do you really consider 50 co
  15. Please excuse my having not got back sooner I was called away. I will attempt to answer all the points raised by Silverfox1961, Steampowered and Ganymede in an honest and precise a manner as I can, obviously any personal data I will refrain from using at this stage. 1. The statistical data provided was obtained from the SRA themselves via a FOI request, so that provided was to all intents and purposes correct as far as we, the public, and they, the SRA are concerned. 2. Yes, I have been involved personally and have spoken to many others who have had the exact same experience
  • Create New...