Skip to main content

Cowboy solicitors


This seemed appropriate

When I was training, I was taught that solicitors and barristers should be highly professional, doing their best for their client no matter what – especially if the clients’ interests conflicted with the lawyers’ personal interests.

What I see in practise from those undertaking legal aid work almost always conforms to those high principles.  Sadly, the more I hear about lawyers undertaking privately financed work – i.e. criminal law work paid for by the client rather than legal aid – is falling short of those principles far too often.

Today I spoke to a client who has a drink driving case.  He contacted me and another solicitor for representation.  Neither of us has seen the prosecution evidence since it has not been served yet.  I have my note of our original conversation in front of me, I advised him on possible defences, special reasons and the likely sentence if convicted or if he chose to plead guilty.  After hearing his account, it was clear that there was no defence arising from his instructions and probably no special reason for the court not to ban him from driving.  Therefore, unless there was a defence on the prosecution papers he would have to plead guilty.

The other solicitor told him that she could certainly prove that the breath test machine at the police station was faulty and thus its evidence unreliable – odds were given of a 70% likelihood of acquittal.  Let us just think about that for a minute.  Without seeing any evidence, or hearing an account of the machine operating unusually, this person is very sure that she can prove the machine was faulty?  That seems a little unlikely to me.  Maybe, she has had another case where the intoximeter was proven to be faulty?  It takes a typical case between 3 to 6 months to get from arrest to trial – this can be much longer where expert evidence is required, as it would be in a faulty intoximeter case.  What are the chances that the police would not have had the faulty intoximeter repaired in that time?  I’d suggest they are pretty low.

Is the solicitor giving her potential client the best possible advice and thus acting in his best interests?  I would suggest that sending somebody on a very expensive fishing trip (she quoted at least £10,000, although if he lost he’d have to pick up the prosecution tab as well) is probably not in the client’s best interests.  Sure if they want to give it a go and don’t care about the money after hearing proper advice then it’s up to them but I find the idea of sending your client down that path merely to line your own pockets to be a very unpleasant act.

I am coming across this sort of nonsense more and more often as firms panic in their rush to pick up work.  It’s quite annoying when you know that you are losing business to somebody who will simply fleece the client for as much as they can, which gives all solicitors, including me, a bad name.

UPDATE: 30th April 2014

It is now exactly 23-hours since I published this blog post and I've received a call from another client who chose to instruct me because "you sound honest but the other solicitor I spoke to was promising things that sounded too good to be true" (he may have said "sounded like fantasy" - I wasn't making a precise note).

It's called professionalism people.

Comments

  1. Is that something you can flag to the regulatory body?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Client's don't really want the hassle and are reluctant to get involved in making formal complaints so quite hard to target individuals.

      However, I might well contact the Solicitors Regulation Authority to ask that they keep this problem in mind.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…