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

[Manxman in exile]

I'm not clear what it is you are trying to achieve from this?

 

If the SRA say "prospective" means "likely" where does this get you? You were never likely to be a client as you had an outstanding complaint against the firm and they clearly didn't want to act for you.

 

And in your OP you talk about "poor service" in respect of the first issue, but now you are talking about negligence.

 

I'm not clear what outcome you wan to see?

[totally_pennyless]

I think a "prospective" client means a potential client.

 

The firm hasn't provided any reasons for refusing to take instructions so I assume nothing.

 

I have submitted a complaint to LeO and am exploring a negligence claim.

 

I am entitled to do both.

[Manxman in exile]

I'm probably wrong and, as you said before it's a matter of interpretation, but...

 

I would not be surprised if the SRA give a very restrictive definition of "prospective".

 

If you think about it, it's quite an odd word to use if they actually meant "potential".

 

Everybody is a potential client of a law firm.

 

I think it must have a narrower meaning than "potential".

 

I think that after complaining about the firm who originally represented you, you were never going to be a prospective client of theirs.

 

But I agree they should have told you this.

[totally_pennyless]

Yeah, what "prospective" means here is anyone's guess.

 

It could mean the moment one approaches them with a request for legal assistance.

 

I don't necessarily agree that anyone who raises a complaint is dropped like a hot potato but agree that many firms would act that way.

[BazzaS]

"Dropped like a hot potato"?

They can't 'drop' a client on an existing matter so easily (it can be done, but by a process acceptable to the SRA / LO), but you still aren't "getting it"......

 

They have no obligation to accept new instreuction from a client, and if that client has complained about them

 

: they may feel that the relationship shouldnt be continued by accepting new instruction.

 

If a firm feels the client has a valid complaint, they may want to address the complaint, retain the relationship, and try to rebuild it.

 

After all, they may see the complaint is justified, and want to keep that client, and the client must feel it is worth still using the firm.

 

If the firm doesn't feel the complaint is warranted, they may just want shot of that client, and not accept further instruction.

 

There isn't anything wrong with that.

 

They only owe you a duty over matters they have already accepted instruction on.

 

 

It was summarized well by:

 

From your point of view, why engage a firm that you are already dissatisfied with?

 

From their pov, why take on more work from a client with an on-going complaint against them?

 

All it takes is one side not wanting to deal further with the other, and it seems both here have reason not to feel the other meets a "good fit" with them.

 

Accepting you feel they are the only firm offering a CFA for your type of case (which seems odd ; why do you think that is?) if their service is so poor, go find a different firm.

 

Mind you, you have had issues with / complained about:

Your social worker, your psychotherapist and their NHS trust,

Your solicitor, the SRA and the LO,

Your dentist, and the GDC.

 

So, that's at least 4 professionals, and their regulators or employers, and an ombudsman.

Why do you think you have been so unlucky?. Have you found a common link between all of these to explain why you have been so unlucky?.

[cjcregg]

I should get an informative response then.

 

 

If SRA run a mirror scheme of the FoI Act then it's important to understand how it works and what you can ask for and what you can't. It's not designed for getting answers to questions. The FoI Act applies only to information that an organization holds, it doesn't cover the views they may hold. So you need to frame the request in the right way. For example asking them how they define 'prospective' probably won't get you anywhere as it's too open ended and subjective. But asking them to provide you with their policy on whether prospective clients fall within the meaning of client for regulatory purposes might have a better chance of yielding a response.

 

 

In life it's not about the answers you get but the questions you ask.

[totally_pennyless]

"Dropped like a hot potato"? They can't 'drop' a client on an existing matter so easily (it can be done, but by a process acceptable to the SRA / LO), but you still aren't "getting it"......

They have no obligation to accept new instreuction from a client, and if that client has complained about them : they may feel that the relationship shouldnt be continued by accepting new instruction.

 

If a firm feels the client has a valid complaint, they may want to address the complaint, retain the relationship, and try to rebuild it. After all, they may see the complaint is justified, and want to keep that client, and the client must feel it is worth still using the firm.

 

If the firm doesn't feel the complaint is warranted, they may just want shot of that client, and not accept further instruction. There isn't anything wrong with that. They only owe you a duty over matters they have already accepted instruction on.

 

It was summarized well by:

 

All it takes is one side not wanting to deal further with the other, and it seems both here have reason not to feel the other meets a "good fit" with them.

 

Accepting you feel they are the only firm offering a CFA for your type of case (which seems odd ; why do you think that is?) if their service is so poor, go find a different firm.

 

Mind you, you have had issues with / complained about:

Your social worker, your psychotherapist and their NHS trust,

Your solicitor, the SRA and the LO,

Your dentist, and the GDC.

 

So, that's at least 4 professionals, and their regulators or employers, and an ombudsman.

Why do you think you have been so unlucky?. Have you found a common link between all of these to explain why you have been so unlucky?.

 

I meant dropped at some point.

 

The SRA code of conduct is open to interpretation. I think we can all agree on that.

 

The firm may or may not like complaints whether they have merit or not. We are just speculating at this stage. It seems common ground that they should have responded in full to my initial round of complaints which suggests they are acting unethically and improperly.

 

There are very few firms that offer CFAs in terms of disability discrimination claims issued at a County Court. If you know of a few then please point me in their direction. Unfortunately, I don't feel able to run my own cases due to health problems etc.

 

I'm not going to get into drawing parallels between issues arising with other organisations etc. but would say that humanity is far from infallible.

 

If SRA run a mirror scheme of the FoI Act then it's important to understand how it works and what you can ask for and what you can't. It's not designed for getting answers to questions. The FoI Act applies only to information that an organization holds, it doesn't cover the views they may hold. So you need to frame the request in the right way. For example asking them how they define 'prospective' probably won't get you anywhere as it's too open ended and subjective. But asking them to provide you with their policy on whether prospective clients fall within the meaning of client for regulatory purposes might have a better chance of yielding a response.

 

 

In life it's not about the answers you get but the questions you ask.

 

Yes, fair point. I may have to write to them again.

 

It seems the only way their decision can be challenged now is by Judicial Review?

[cjcregg]

Yes, fair point. I may have to write to them again.

 

It seems the only way their decision can be challenged now is by Judicial Review?

 

 

If your initial request is declined you can ask for an independent review. I doubt that an application for judicial review would work. You don't challenge a decision by way of judicial review, you challenge the process by which it was made and the SRA scheme is not statutory but voluntary.

[BazzaS]

There are very few firms that offer CFAs in terms of disability discrimination claims issued at a County Court.

 

.........

Unfortunately, I don't feel able to run my own cases due to health problems etc.

 

It seems the only way their decision can be challenged now is by Judicial Review?

 

If your health is such that you can’t run your own case in the County Court, and you would be having to use a CFA to fund such, won’t that mean a Judicial Review is highly unlikely:

A) whose is going to run it?

B) how is it going to be funded.

 

Pro Bono judicial review is rare, and you’d have to have an overwhelming compelling public interest reason to find someone to undertake it / find it .......

 

I'm not going to get into drawing parallels between issues arising with other organisations etc. but would say that humanity is far from infallible.

 

Yet most people are unlucky to have problems with 1 or 2 of (professionals / their employers / their regulators).

To have had issues with at least 8 suggests someone is very unlucky, or there is some other issue.

 

Once is unlucky. Once and their regulator : quite unlucky.

2 professionals and at least one regulator? Wow, that’s unlucky.

 

4 professionals. 4 employers / regulators / Ombudsman?

That’s an awfully unlucky coincidence.....

 

Then take that with your failing to accept that the solicitors may not want to engage with you on the new matter, and can easily (and reasonably!) do so ... perhaps your expectations need adjusting?

[totally_pennyless]

If your initial request is declined you can ask for an independent review. I doubt that an application for judicial review would work. You don't challenge a decision by way of judicial review, you challenge the process by which it was made and the SRA scheme is not statutory but voluntary.

 

I think they are still a public authority and therefore their decisions are subject to Judicial Review.

 

If your health is such that you can’t run your own case in the County Court, and you would be having to use a CFA to fund such, won’t that mean a Judicial Review is highly unlikely:

A) whose is going to run it?

B) how is it going to be funded.

 

Pro Bono judicial review is rare, and you’d have to have an overwhelming compelling public interest reason to find someone to undertake it / find it .......

 

Legal aid covers Judicial Review. In terms of discrimination cases, the legal help one gets is very limited.

 

Yet most people are unlucky to have problems with 1 or 2 of (professionals / their employers / their regulators).

To have had issues with at least 8 suggests someone is very unlucky, or there is some other issue.

 

Once is unlucky. Once and their regulator : quite unlucky.

2 professionals and at least one regulator? Wow, that’s unlucky.

 

4 professionals. 4 employers / regulators / Ombudsman?

That’s an awfully unlucky coincidence.....

 

Then take that with your failing to accept that the solicitors may not want to engage with you on the new matter, and can easily (and reasonably!) do so ... perhaps your expectations need adjusting?

 

I resent what you are insinuating here and I'm certainly not going to attend the argument you are inviting me to.

[cjcregg]

Legal aid covers Judicial Review.

 

 

So let me get this right.

 

 

You'd consider applying for legal aid in order to make an application for a judicial review of SRA if they don't tell you what they mean by 'prospective', in order that you can then complain to SRA that a solicitor has somehow victimized you because they didn't deal with your complaint to your satisfaction and/or they didn't act on your instructions when it's not even clear that you were a client?

 

 

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[Guest]

plus, OP would need to first find a required legal aid solicitor willing to act in the case...!

[BazzaS]

Legal aid covers Judicial Review. In terms of discrimination cases, the legal help one gets is very limited.

 

And the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013.......

as amended (2016) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/781/contents/made

 

I resent what you are insinuating here and I'm certainly not going to attend the argument you are inviting me to.

 

Resent it all you wish.

The key issue is (rather) if you’d be happy for any new solicitors you might wish to engage to review this thread, so they could have an idea of what they are letting themselves in for .......

Are you going to point them here or hope they are blissfully unaware before they agree to your instruction?

 

So let me get this right.

 

 

You'd consider applying for legal aid in order to make an application for a judicial review of SRA if they don't tell you what they mean by 'prospective', in order that you can then complain to SRA that a solicitor has somehow victimized you because they didn't deal with your complaint to your satisfaction and/or they didn't act on your instructions when it's not even clear that you were a client?

 

 

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

OP will (based on their postings to date) prefer instead to consider themselves the unluckiest person alive before accepting that they might have to consider if it is, instead, that their expectations are unrealistic.

[totally_pennyless]

So let me get this right.

 

 

You'd consider applying for legal aid in order to make an application for a judicial review of SRA if they don't tell you what they mean by 'prospective', in order that you can then complain to SRA that a solicitor has somehow victimized you because they didn't deal with your complaint to your satisfaction and/or they didn't act on your instructions when it's not even clear that you were a client?

 

 

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

No, it seems you are confused. The use of legal aid is available to challenge the SRA's decision to dismiss my complaint or look into the merits of that.

 

And the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013.......

as amended (2016) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/781/contents/made

 

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

Resent it all you wish.

The key issue is (rather) if you’d be happy for any new solicitors you might wish to engage to review this thread, so they could have an idea of what they are letting themselves in for .......

Are you going to point them here or hope they are blissfully unaware before they agree to your instruction?

 

I could easily say the same about your attitude on this thread as it is clear you are just using it as a platform to undermine me as opposed to adding anything constructive.

 

OP will (based on their postings to date) prefer instead to consider themselves the unluckiest person alive before accepting that they might have to consider if it is, instead, that their expectations are unrealistic.

 

No, my expectations are realistic hence the fact that I consider exploring if there has been fault. If you think humankind is infallible then I wish you all the best with that mindset.

[BazzaS]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

My point (there at least) is that you won’t get a legal aid funded judicial review.

 

I could easily say the same about your attitude on this thread as it is clear you are just using it as a platform to undermine me as opposed to adding anything constructive.

 

Yet, I’m not the one with complaints against 4 different professionals, and their employers / regulators ..... so say away what you wish about my “attitude” ........

 

My input is only “not constructive” because you aren’t willing to consider it.

 

 

No, my expectations are realistic hence the fact that I consider exploring if there has been fault. If you think humankind is infallible then I wish you all the best with that mindset.

 

Others also think you aren’t being realistic.

Who else thinks you are being realistic?

(Cue #”the lurkers support me in email”#...... )

 

 

Good luck (since you’ll need it, unless you start being realstic, you’ll just ended up concluding that the legal system, the professionals and the regulators are all biased against you because they are all mistaken, as it can’t possibly be you and your expectations).

[totally_pennyless]

Is that your expert legal opinion?

So I won't get legal aid to even look at the merits? T

 

hat's interesting...

 

You are obviously very naive and/or blissfully ignorant.

[BazzaS]

Oh well, let us know how you get on, investigation phase or ‘full’ phase.

Don’t forget to point any prospective firm of solicitors you are considering retaining to this thread if you are so sure it won’t scare them off........

[totally_pennyless]

Yes, shame on me for exploring a potential misinterpretation and raising concerns that a firm hasn't complied with its own complaints procedure and the SRA code of conduct.

[Guest]

No, it seems you are confused. The use of legal aid is available to challenge the SRA's decision to dismiss my complaint or look into the merits of that.

it seems you may be confused.

to get legal aid in the first place, and then an initial judicial review application in, you'll need a legal aid lawyer.

and, it is unlikely that a legal aid lawyer would take it on, due to its lack of merit at least.

even if you do happen to get an application in, it would v unlikely get past the J.

[totally_pennyless]

This is of course even before the SRA have clarified what they mean by a "prospective" client?

 

It seems you may be jumping the gun.

[Guest]

nope.

either way,

there is unlikely to be any merit for legally aided judicial review.

 

you mentioned legal aid JR,

so i posted about your wholly unrealistic chances there.

 

it seems you have regularly 'jumped the gun',

without looking into things a bit prior.

 

you have admitted yourself that you may need to write another letter to the sra following cjc's post!

good luck.

[totally_pennyless]

I have already written to them requesting any documents they have which sheds light on the issue.

 

If it comes to light that their own policy documents are at odds with the decision they made then it is plain the case has merit.

 

In any event, as alluded to previously, this may be a moot point as I was certainly a client in terms of my initial round of complaints.

 

I suspect they may take action there as that was a clear breach of the code by anyone's standards.

 

I have still not had a decision in that regard.

[cjcregg]

No, it seems you are confused. The use of legal aid is available to challenge the SRA's decision to dismiss my complaint or look into the merits of that.

 

 

Legal aid funding for judicial review is restricted to challenging public and governmental bodies only, for which SRA isn't (and which is why they are not covered by FoI).

[BazzaS]

Is that your expert legal opinion? So I won't get legal aid to even look at the merits? That's interesting...

 

You are obviously very naive and/or blissfully ignorant.

 

Ohh, look:

Someone else “naive and/or blissfully ignorant”

 

Legal aid funding for judicial review is restricted to challenging public and governmental bodies only, for which SRA isn't (and which is why they are not covered by FoI).

 

Are we both wrong (and yet again both wrong)?

 

I’m expecting that a “back-pedal” will follow (or some sort of ‘stage illusionist misdirection’ such as ‘they’ve upheld my initial complaint, so the matter of the complaint(s) around the new instruction are moot.....’)

[Guest]

general info

'...Our (regulatory) decisions can be challenged by appeals or judicial review. Normally, we publish a decision only after the expiry of an appeal period....'

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/policy.page#policy