Is Morgan Solicitors Regulated by SRA?

[toymaker1]

Hello

 

Can anyone tell me if Morgan Solicitors, based at West Malling, Kent, are regulated by The Solicitor's Regulation Authority? and, are they required to be regulated by the SRA?.

 

Thanks for any info.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I thought all lawyers were regulated. I'll have a look online.

 

HB

[silverfox1961]

Can't find anything as yet on the SRA website however, it is likely that the solicitor named on any documents from Morgans is.

 

Morgans is a trading name of Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd.

 

Is there a separate name (signature)?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Can't find anything as yet on the SRA website however, it is likely that the solicitor named on any documents from Morgans is.

 

Morgans is a trading name of Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd.

 

Is there a separate name (signature)?

 

 

Ajay Mitha LLB Litigations Associate Morgans/ Cabot seem to remember from some years back that there was a solicitor called Morgan working as a Director of Cabot who lent his name for Morgans Solicitors.

[barns66]

I had dealings with Cabot and Morgan Solicitors and the Morgans they used in 2011 where in Rugby.

 

barns66

[toymaker1]

Can't find anything as yet on the SRA website however, it is likely that the solicitor named on any documents from Morgans is.

 

Morgans is a trading name of Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd.

 

Is there a separate name (signature)?

Thanks for responses.

 

The thing is, Cabot Financial employ a solicitor named Piers Morgan. - He is an employee of Cabot Financial.; but there is no company called "Morgan Solicitors" . That is to say, there is no organisation regulated by the Solicitor's Regulation Society which has the name "Morgan Solicitors" - a solicitor named Piers Morgan is regulated as an individual solicitor by the SRA. - he is not regulated undeer the name "Morgan solicitors.

So, for example, if you get a letter from a solicitor identified as Piers Morgan, you can be confident that he is legally regulated by SRA. Whereas, if you get a letter from an organisation identified as "Morgan Solictors", then you cannot be confident that that organisation is legally regulated by SRA, because no such organisation is regulated by the SRA. The question is, is it legal for an organisation to identify itself as "Morgan Solicitors" when no such organisation is regulated by the SRA. Surely, if an organisation calls itself "Mr Blobby Solicitors". then there must exist an organisation which is regulated by the SRA (therefore known to the SRA) under the title Mr Blobby Solicitors.

And, if "Mr Blobby Solicitors" is not on the list of organisations regulated by the SRA, then "Mr Blobby Solicitors" is not legally entitled to use the word "Solicitors" in it's name.

 

I am of course thinking of the current Wonga case, where an organisation identified itself as "solicitors", but could not be found on the list of SRA regulated organisations, in the same way that "Morgan Solicitors" cannot be found on the list of SRA regulated organisations. So, when you receive a legal letter from an organisation which identifies itself as "Morgan Solicitors, it seems to me that you have received a letter from an organisation purporting to be "solicitors, when they have no right to use that term, inasmuch as they are not registered as solictors by SRA.

 

Cheers.

[citizenB]

If you think the letter is suspect, then send a copy of it to the Financial Conduct Authority

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428252-FCA-requests-dodgy-letters-)&highlight=FCA

[toymaker1]

If you think the letter is suspect, then send a copy of it to the Financial Conduct Authority

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428252-FCA-requests-dodgy-letters-)&highlight=FCA

 

I have not had a letter from them.

I am simply pointing out, for the benefit of consumers who may have received a letter from an organisation which identifies itself as "Morgan Solictors", that there is no such company registered at Companies House, and there is no such company regulated by the SRA.

Just be aware then, if you choose to reply to a letter from that organisation, that it does not legally exist.

[Ganymede]

Morgans Solicitors does exist as a trading name of Cabot Credit Management Group and are apparently a law firm not regulated by the SRA.

 

 

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/office/505514/cabot-credit-management-group

[barns66]

When i was dealing with Cabot and Morgan Solicitors ,they where the in house Solicitors and working out of Rugby and that's the address i used to sent letters to.

[toymaker1]

Morgans Solicitors does exist as a trading name of Cabot Credit Management Group and are apparently a law firm not regulated by the SRA.

 

 

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/office/505514/cabot-credit-management-group

 

That is the point I was making. - "Morgan Solicitors" are not regulated by the SRA, Therefore why do they use the term "Solicitors" on their letters? An organisation should not describe itself as "Solicitors" unless it is regulated by the SRA. A trading name is just a trading name. It does not, of itself, provide legal entitlement to act as an SRA regulated solicitor. "Morgan Solicitors" is a trading name of Cabot Credit management Group. Cabot is not regulated by SRA as a solicitor. Therefore Cabot is no more entitled to act as a solicitor than the greengrocer down the road. - and that must apply to any trading name used by Cabot. Use of a trading name does not magically change Cabot (or their trading name) into a solicitor regulated by SRA.

I am simply pointing this out to people who receive letters from Morgan Solicitors. They should be aware that Morgan Solicitors is not a law company, and is not regulated by SRA as a law company, and therefore has no right to act as a solicitor. Anyone who gets a letter from Morgan Solicitors might wish to write to Morgan Solicitors asking them to prove that they have the right to act as a solicitor regulated by the Solicitor's Regulation Authority.

[Ganymede]

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

 

Are Mogans claiming to be regulated by the SRA? You can use whatever you like in your trading name.

 

The Law Society has Morgans down as a non regulated law firm, Piers Morgan is regulated by the SRA and will be entitled to act as a solicitor.

 

You would be wasting your time writing to Morgans trying to argue this point.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

 

Are Mogans claiming to be regulated by the SRA? You can use whatever you like in your trading name.

 

The Law Society has Morgans down as a non regulated law firm, Piers Morgan is regulated by the SRA and will be entitled to act as a solicitor.

 

You would be wasting your time writing to Morgans trying to argue this point.

 

This came up years ago there is nothing improper about this.

[Ganymede]

This came up years ago there is nothing improper about this.

 

I know. The OP is clutching at straws.

[toymaker1]

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

 

Are Mogans claiming to be regulated by the SRA? You can use whatever you like in your trading name.

 

The Law Society has Morgans down as a non regulated law firm, Piers Morgan is regulated by the SRA and will be entitled to act as a solicitor.

 

You would be wasting your time writing to Morgans trying to argue this point.

 

From the Guardian:

 

Britain's high-street banks are routinely issuing legal demands from what appear to be independent firms of solicitors designed to make struggling borrowers pay up. Yet the firms are not regulated by the legal profession's watchdog, and are simply names used by banks' in-house lawyers.

Royal Bank of Scotland and its NatWest arm have been using Green & Co Solicitors in Telford; Lloyds Bank uses SCM Solicitors in Hove, East Sussex, and, until January this year, HSBC used DG Solicitors in Edgbaston, Birmingham.

But a search of the register run by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) reveals that none exist as an entity supervised by the regulator.

The practice is legal because the letters are signed by a lawyer who is individually regulated by the SRA. Yet they give the impression to borrowers that their case has been escalated to a third party, using legal language such as "We are instructed by our client" and "We are likely to be instructed to commence court proceedings". The letter heading is near-identical, too, to that of an independent firm of solicitors, and typically uses a different address from that of the bank concerned.

Critics claim that the letters can be confusing and a scare tactic designed to harass people into paying up. But the good news for consumers is that since Guardian Money and others began probing the issue, the SRA has revealed that it will soon issue guidance after receiving a number of complaints that had given it "cause for concern".

And on Thursday, RBS disclosed that after a review of the letters it sends, it was stopping the use of any solicitor or debt-collection brand names that "could cause confusion".

The banks use a form of wording in the small print of the demands that identifies the solicitor "firm" as a unit of the bank. RBS says Green & Co is the "practising name of solicitors employed by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group", while Lloyds says SCM is "part of the in-house litigation department of Lloyds Banking Group".

Some will be surprised to learn that a company can explicitly use the word "solicitors" in its name and yet not be regulated as a firm by the SRA.

The SRA said that SCM Solicitors, for example, ceased trading as an independent regulated law firm in 2011, adding: "The firm is not a firm as an entity – it's just a trading name."

That, arguably, is a somewhat confusing distinction that may well be lost on the panicking recipients of the letters.

After details of the "pseudo" solicitor firms emerged, the head of the powerful Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie MP, said: "Customers should know who they are dealing with—it seems they may not have done. I will be writing to the banks for clarification."

The tactics banks use to persuade people to pay up have come under the spotlight after the already notorious case of payday lender Wonga.

Last week it was ordered to pay £2.6m in compensation after it sent letters, to customers in arrears, from bogus law firms – such as Chainey D'Amato & Shannon – leading customers to believe that their outstanding debt had been passed to a law firm or another third party. There is no suggestion the banks are acting in the same way as Wonga. The crucial difference is that Wonga sent letters from fake lawyers, whereas the individuals signing the letters from the banks are authorised and regulated by the SRA.

But there is concern that, unless the people who receive the letters study the small print, they may feel duped into believing that their bank has escalated their case to a third-party firm, and that proceedings are imminent.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Mr. Morgan is a solicitor registered and regulated most if not all " 1 man band" law practices will use the xxxxxxxxxx Solicitors listing style for business purposes the principal being the named regulated solicitor.

 

 

Much of what in published by the Grauniad has been thrown around many times before.

 

 

The whole simple point is that Mr xxxxxxxxxxx is a regulated solicitor acting on behalf of his employer.

 

 

I have seen the "status" of such law "firms" challenged many times for claiming their " employer " is a client (customer) it has always failed to have any impact,

 

 

Challenged one such set up with a DCA having a Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Principal Solicitor operating as a trading name of the DCA most if not all of the litigation was carried out by a rather useless paralegal but signed off by the "principal solicitor" probably never even seeing the case work.

 

 

The regulators had no comment .

[Ganymede]

That just repeats what you have already been told.

 

There is nothing wrong with what Morgans do.

[toymaker1]

most if not all of the litigation was carried out by a rather useless paralegal but signed off by the "principal solicitor" probably never even seeing the case work.

That's right. In America it has been identified as 'Robosigning' ,- and it is coming to a debt collection company near you (it iwas already here, but has gone undetected until Wonga were caught out by FCA two weeks ago.)

 

Definition of 'Robo-Signer'

 

An employee of a mortgage servicing company that signs foreclosure documents without reviewing them. Rather than actually reviewing the individual details of each case, robo-signers assume the paperwork to be correct and sign it automatically, like robots.

 

Investopedia explains 'Robo-Signer'

 

In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, a robo-signing scandal emerged in the United States involving GMAC Mortgage and a number of major U.S banks. Banks had to halt thousands of foreclosures in numerous states when it became known that the paperwork was illegitimate because the signers had not actually reviewed it. While some robo-signers were middle managers, others were temporary workers with virtually no understanding of the work they were doing.

[Ganymede]

Mr. Morgan is a solicitor registered and regulated most if not all " 1 man band" law practices will use the xxxxxxxxxx Solicitors listing style for business purposes the principal being the named regulated solicitor.

 

 

Much of what in published by the Grauniad has been thrown around many times before.

 

 

The whole simple point is that Mr xxxxxxxxxxx is a regulated solicitor acting on behalf of his employer.

 

 

I have seen the "status" of such law "firms" challenged many times for claiming their " employer " is a client (customer) it has always failed to have any impact,

 

 

Challenged one such set up with a DCA having a Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Principal Solicitor operating as a trading name of the DCA most if not all of the litigation was carried out by a rather useless paralegal but signed off by the "principal solicitor" probably never even seeing the case work.

 

 

The regulators had no comment .

 

Not surprised they had nothing to say about it.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with paralegals or legal executives doing the work and being supervised by a solicitor. Every law firm has that.

 

Not all employees of a law firm need to be fully qualified solicitors.

[Ganymede]

That's right. In America it has been identified as 'Robosigning' ,- and it is coming to a debt collection company near you (it iwas already here, but has gone undetected until Wonga were caught out by FCA two weeks ago.)

 

Definition of 'Robo-Signer'

 

An employee of a mortgage servicing company that signs foreclosure documents without reviewing them. Rather than actually reviewing the individual details of each case, robo-signers assume the paperwork to be correct and sign it automatically, like robots.

 

Investopedia explains 'Robo-Signer'

 

In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, a robo-signing scandal emerged in the United States involving GMAC Mortgage and a number of major U.S banks. Banks had to halt thousands of foreclosures in numerous states when it became known that the paperwork was illegitimate because the signers had not actually reviewed it. While some robo-signers were middle managers, others were temporary workers with virtually no understanding of the work they were doing.

 

Not really applicable in England though. Conveyancing is very different over here.

[toymaker1]

Not surprised they had nothing to say about it.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with paralegals or legal executives doing the work and being supervised by a solicitor. Every law firm has that.

 

Not all employees of a law firm need to be fully qualified solicitors.

 

Right, but 'Morgan Solicitor's' is not a law firm.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Right, but 'Morgan Solicitor's' is not a law firm.

One man/woman qualified and registered ac be a law firm.

This "straw" that is being clutched is sinking.

[toymaker1]

One man/woman qualified and registered ac be a law firm.

This "straw" that is being clutched is sinking.

 

Wonga are home and dry then, they employ seven registered solicitors, Cabot employs only one solicitor (Mr Morgan)

Why is FCA making Wonga pay £2.3 million compensation?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Wonga are home and dry then, they employ seven registered solicitors, Cabot employs only one solicitor (Mr Morgan)

Why is FCA making Wonga pay £2.3 million compensation?

It is compensation not a regulatory fine.

[toymaker1]

It is compensation not a regulatory fine.

Thats right. - as I said, Wonga has been ordered to pay £2.3 million compensation. -