Can a solicitor ignore a request for legal assistance and a complaint?

[Ganymede]

Yep, they ignored the complaint too.

 

I have to wait 8 weeks before I can complaint to the LO. I complained on 11 October 2017 (less than 8 weeks ago).

 

The LO may also argue I was not a client of theirs, and therefore their actions were acceptable, which is another reason I want clarity on that issue.

 

As you are already an existing client then the LO might side with you.

 

However, it has been explained to you several times that the law firm has no duty to accept your instructions or act for you on the new second issue if they don't want to.

[totally_pennyless]

And any appeal against the SRA saying that they can’t consider any breach of their code of conduct for when the OP wasn’t a client.

 

(I doubt any appeal will succeed, but not having appealed ruled out a JR....., the OP would have to appeal and have the appeal rejected first.)

Yes, any advice that doesn’t fit with your pre-formed view can’t be:

a) impartial, and

b) has to be ‘advice’ rather than advice (minus the “ ‘ “).

In a similar vein;

 

Ahem. You seem to be confusing:

“I think you will be unsuccessful “ (and an assiciated explanation of why!) with “I hope you will be unsuccessful”.........

 

Don’t forget: any post that fits your pre-formed view must be correct, no matter how poorly framed / unsupported by logical argument.

Any post that contradicts your pre-formed view must be wrong / wishing you ill / argumentative no matter how well phrased and supported by facts / logic. Simples.

 

Yet, who else thinks you are correct?. Clearly you are correct, and the rest of us are dullards,

 

Or the rest of us can’t compose posts properly.

Mind you, dullard that I am I still find Ford’s posts entirely comprehendable.

 

You mean comprehensible?

 

These things are open to interpretation, I am just giving you my subjective interpretation. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with my interpretation and with me altogether, as seems to be the case.

 

As you are already an existing client then the LO might side with you.

 

However, it has been explained to you several times that the law firm has no duty to accept your instructions or act for you on the new second issue if they don't want to.

 

Yeah, it all comes down to how a "client" is defined. If I did meet the definition then they have a duty to provide me with a proper standard of service (as per the SRA code of conduct), which includes assessing my request for assistance.

[Ganymede]

Yeah, it all comes down to how a "client" is defined. If I did meet the definition then they have a duty to provide me with a proper standard of service (as per the SRA code of conduct), which includes assessing my request for assistance.

 

No they don't need to spend time assessing your second claim and writing to you with any detailed advice.

 

What they should have done is sent a one line letter to you saying "We are not instructed to act for you in relation to X so therefore cannot offer you advice", or something along those lines.

[totally_pennyless]

I wasn't expecting or asking for detailed advice. If they were busy etc. then all they had to do was say that.

 

Yes, I consider their conduct very discourteous and unprofessional, which is why I feel so aggrieved.

[Ganymede]

Fair enough, make a complaint to the relevant regulator but you shouldn't waste your time appealing it etc if your complaint is rejected by the LO.

[totally_pennyless]

Yes, indeed. I am only prepared to waste a limited amount of time and energy.

[Ganymede]

Good plan.

[totally_pennyless]

I'll post the response(s) I get from the SRA in case anyone is interested.

[Guest]

not me. am out of your time wasting spurious threads/posts.

 

no worries. fair dos, you played it.

[BazzaS]

Yes, indeed. I am only prepared to waste a limited amount of time and energy.

 

The judicial review will take quite some time and energy ..............

 

You mean comprehensible?

 

Synonyms. So, I meant what I typed.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/comprehendible

 

Unless, of course, you want to argue the toss over that, too?.

 

These things are open to interpretation, I am just giving you my subjective interpretation. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with my interpretation and with me altogether, as seems to be the case.

 

Are you a solicitor trained in public law?

 

Ahem.

How do they get to be a solicitor if they haven't studied public law (as part of a LLB or GDL)?.

What is the extra 'training' in public law you are looking for to make them "a solicitor trained in public law" over and above that SRA requirement?

 

Do you just want to know if someone is a solicitor if they are disagreeing with you?. Doesn't it matter if they are are not so long as they are agreeing with you (which is, at the moment, a moot point, as it appears no-one is!)

 

The judicial review will take quite some time and energy ..............

 

Your iniotial application, if you ever get past 'just talking about it', that is ..... there won't be an actual JR, so the High Court won't have to waste time and energy on it

[totally_pennyless]

not me. am out of your time wasting spurious threads/posts.

no worries. fair dos, you played it.

 

Seems you a not too impressed by something. Sorry you feel that way.

[Manxman in exile]

Can any one remind me of the title of the 80s BBC sitcom starring Richard Briers, Penelope Wilton and Peter Egan?

 

I have a sense of deja vu...

 

EDIT: plus a sense of the word "fundament" too...

Edited November 12, 2017 by Manxman in exile
Add

[totally_pennyless]

Synonyms. So, I meant what I typed.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/comprehendible

 

Unless, of course, you want to argue the toss over that, too?.

 

Ahem.

How do they get to be a solicitor if they haven't studied public law (as part of a LLB or GDL)?.

What is the extra 'training' in public law you are looking for to make them "a solicitor trained in public law" over and above that SRA requirement?

 

Do you just want to know if someone is a solicitor if they are disagreeing with you?. Doesn't it matter if they are are not so long as they are agreeing with you (which is, at the moment, a moot point, as it appears no-one is!)

 

You have really taken a disliking to me haven't you?

 

You can't really expect me to take your comments too seriously when you overtly admitted to trying to discredit or undermine my concerns simply because I have raised issues in regards to other organisations. It is plain that, right from the outset, you weren't going to approach and comment on the matter at hand fairly.

[sgtbush]

Hhmmmm ever decreasing circles!

[totally_pennyless]

Your iniotial application, if you ever get past 'just talking about it', that is ..... there won't be an actual JR, so the High Court won't have to waste time and energy on it

 

Another comment that is hardly fair and constructive.

[Manxman in exile]

Another BBC reference from Monty Python this time.

 

Michael Palin points out to John Cleese that an "argument" is not just the automatic gainsaying of what your opponent has said, you need to have a logically (and presumably knowledgeable) reasoned position from which to counter what your opponent claims.

 

No argument (in that meaning of the word, at least) here then.

 

(PS - sgtbush remembers Ever Decreasing Circles then! What about the fundament bit!)

 

Bloody hell! Did someone on this thread accuse me of being argumentative?

 

Are you a solicitor trained in public law? Can you see into the future and see how the SRA are going to respond to my request for information and can you foresee the outcome of any appeal or request for them to review their decision?

 

Sorry - meant to quote this post on my earlier Monty Python reference post!

 

Quite.

 

It might (in very restricted circumstance!) be possible to get legal aid for a judicial review of an SRA decision, although it will be vanishingly rare.

More and more obstacles to LA funding of JR's has been created, not just in 2013 but in the 2016 amendments, too.

 

Thge OP seems to be conflating:

a) Is the SRA subject to JR with

b) Is it likely there can be LA funding for a JR of an SRA decision, with

c) Is it likely there can be LA funding of a JR of an SRA assessment that a matter falls outside of their remit for a decision!, with

d) Could this OP get LA funding for a a JR of the SRA's assessment that the OP's complaint about the new instruction is a matter that falls outside of their remit for a SRA code of conduct decision!

 

The OP may try to divert attention to any of a-c), where what matters to the OP is d) ; the situation they face.

 

So, the OP, on the matter they have raised : the SRA's hadling of their complaint about the firm's refusal to take new instruction on a new matter , is nowhere near able to get LA funding for a JR, on at least 2 aspects (merits, and process ; the process issue being that they haven't exhausted an appeal option available to them).

 

Are they giving the impression they are 'posting for validation, not advice' there too?.

 

Why is it 'grumpy' to not only say that you are wrong, but explain why you are wrong, too.

You only perceive it as 'grumpy' because you only want to hear answers that validate your expectations.

 

Re bit I've put in bold: Who's to say? Some people prefer to be advised they are right rather than wrong. I was always taught a good lawyer tells their client when they are wrong - not what they want to hear.

 

FWIW other posters there have pointed out that OP seems very unfortunate in their choice of legal advisors and other professional over some time. Whether that is right or not, I do not know.

[BazzaS]

You have really taken a disliking to me haven't you?

 

You can't really expect me to take your comments too seriously when you overtly admitted to trying to discredit or undermine my concerns simply because I have raised issues in regards to other organisations. It is plain that, right from the outset, you weren't going to approach and comment on the matter at hand fairly.

 

The combination of your previous multiple complaints that were found to be unsubstantiated by employers / regulators was what led me to wonder if your were (argumentative with unreasonable expectations) OR “one of the unluckiest people alive” to have met so many malevolent / erring professionals & their aberrant regulators.

 

It was your responses over the last 8 pages that meant I realised it was unlikely to be the later : no pre-judgment.

 

Even so, I don’t dislike you (I don’t know you) : The only thing about you I know well enough to dislike is your approach to this matter and the way you respond to any post disagreeing with you....

[Manxman in exile]

Hhmmmm ever decreasing circles!

 

 

 

Thank you Sergeant!

 

 

Contains three of my favourite actors. The title seemed appropriate here.

[totally_pennyless]

The combination of your previous multiple complaints that were found to be unsubstantiated by employers / regulators was what led me to wonder if your were (argumentative with unreasonable expectations) OR “one of the unluckiest people alive” to have met so many malevolent / erring professionals & their aberrant regulators.

 

It was your responses over the last 8 pages that meant I realised it was unlikely to be the later : no pre-judgment.

 

Even so, I don’t dislike you (I don’t know you) : The only thing about you I know well enough to dislike is your approach to this matter and the way you respond to any post disagreeing with you....

 

With respect to you, you know very little about those matters. So, to propose that because I've raised other issues therefore the problem must lie with me is arguably offensive, whether intended to be that way or not.

 

Further to my last past, I was discussing issues with a disabled person who has brought around 100 disability discrimination claims in a County Court. According to your reasoning, he can't have been successful in the last few claims because that would make him "one of the unluckiest people alive". However, he has been successful in his recent claims and the Supreme Court have recently upheld an appeal in relation to one of his cases.

[BazzaS]

If we are on film quotes:

“Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time ......”

 

Which doesn’t then go on and on to the 8th+ occurrence.....

[BazzaS]

Further to my last past, I was discussing issues with a disabled person who has brought around 100 disability discrimination claims in a County Court. According to your reasoning, he can't have been successful in the last few claims because that would make him "one of the unluckiest people alive". However, he has been successful in his recent claims and the Supreme Court have recently upheld an appeal in relation to one of his cases.

 

Yes, he’s been successful. That doesn’t make him “plain unlucky”

 

Have you been succesful in any of your claims / complaints so far?

 

It suggests he is careful what cases he takes on, rather than pursuing hopeless cases, whereas ......

 

Probably the key determinant : Is he taking on your (2nd / ‘new’) matter for you?

[totally_pennyless]

And you know enough about all my past issues, in all your infinite wisdom, to come to the conclusion that I my concerns were not substantiated?

 

You are also of course aware of the fact that just because something isn't proven in terms of judicial or quasi-judicial processes it doesn't automatically follow that the allegation never occurred as alleged.

[BazzaS]

With respect to you, you know very little about those matters. So, to propose that because I've raised other issues therefore the problem must lie with me is arguably offensive, whether intended to be that way or not.

 

Nope, as I said : the indicator is not the number of matters but instead BOTH that, and your behaviour on this thread that lead me to my conclusion.

 

And you know enough about all my past issues, in all your infinite wisdom, to come to the conclusion that I my concerns were not substantiated?

 

You are also of course aware of the fact that just because something isn't proven in terms of judicial or quasi-judicial processes it doesn't automatically follow that the allegation never occurred as alleged.

 

Did you get them upheld? Any of them?.

 

Mind you, that might be an indicator of your ability to compose a credible complaint, rather than just “did it occur or not”?.....

[totally_pennyless]

If we are on film quotes:

“Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time ......”

 

Which doesn’t then go on and on to the 8th+ occurrence.....

 

So it's all a numbers game for you?

 

Did you get them upheld? Any of them?.

 

Mind you, that might be an indicator of your ability to compose a credible complaint, rather than just “did it occur or not”?.....

 

I don't see any mileage to be gained by discussing this with you.

 

Nope, as I said : the indicator is not the number of matters but instead BOTH that, and your behaviour on this thread that lead me to my conclusion.

 

By not necessarily agreeing to your future predictions about how the SRA may respond to requests for information, deal with a review request and, subsequently, how a qualified and experienced solicitor may consider the merits of a Judicial Review if I feel compelled to explore that?

[BazzaS]

By not necessarily agreeing to your future predictions about how the SRA may respond to requests for information, dealing with a review request and, subsequently, how a qualified and experienced solicitor may consider the merits of a Judicial Review if I feel compelled to explore that?

 

Say again?

 

So it's all a numbers game for you?

 

See previous answer (well, answered multiple timed!)

 

I don't see any mileage to be gained by discussing this with you.

 

Yet, if you had succeeded, you’d be crowing about it.