How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated intention
is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother as stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated intention
is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother as stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated intention
is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although he
genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother as
stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
A solicitor is not allowed to put forward a case which he knows to be dishonest or which is unduly oppressive to the opponent.
My recollection is that years ago, solicitors were sending out letters
before action to ordinary householders saying that they had been
discovered downloading unlawful copyright content, and demanding hefty
sums of compensation to avoid the need for proceedings. If I remember rightly, those firms were castigated by the SRA and told to stop doing
it. If anyone can trace any press reports maybe they can supply a link
and tell me if my recollection is correct.
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated
intention is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although
he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother
as stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal
costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
In theory, or in reality?
Threatening litigation or making counterclaims and defence arguments
for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or
advancing legal rights can be considered "Pursuing litigation for
improper purposes" by the SRA.
Similarly, making allegations without merit where the sole purpose is
to stifle an opponent could be considered similarly. (See the SRA's treatment of those involved in so-called SLAPP cases for their current thoughts on such litigation.)
Then there's paragraph 1.2 of the SRA's Code of Conduct for Solicitors
which says of solicitors: "you must not abuse your position by taking
unfair advantage of clients or others."
Giving artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines to reply to correspondence have been considered as "Taking unfair advantage" by
the SRA.
As has threatening litigation where there is no proper legal basis for
a claim, making exaggerated claims of adverse consequences, sending excessively legalistic letters with the aim of intimidating the other
party, particularly unrepresented or lay parties and sending letters
in abusive, intimidating or aggressive tone or language.
There is case law for excessive litigation and the court's view
thereof, for example see Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc
and others [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm) [2013] [1] and Optimares SpA v
Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) [2] (Spoiler Alert: Indemnity Costs)
So that's it then? A solicitor must turn away a vexatious client?
As always, the devil is in the detail.
Litigation involves making a client aware of the potential costs,
risks and merits of their case and then putting the case against the
other party in strong terms pursuant to the client's instructions.
Solicitors are not routinely obliged to challenge their own client's
case, although they do have a duty to interrogate and engage properly
with the legal and evidential merits thereof.
They must not advance arguments that they do not consider to be
properly arguable and they must have regard to the rule of law and the administration of justice.
But there's enough wriggle room in all the above for a skilled
solicitor to stay this side of the line as far as the regulations,
code of conduct and guidance go, whilst still causing the other party
no end of trouble.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/4278.html
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2507.html
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated intentionA solicitor is not allowed to put forward a case which he knows to be dishonest or which is unduly oppressive to the opponent.
is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although
he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother as
stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
My recollection is that years ago, solicitors were sending out letters
before action to ordinary householders saying that they had been
discovered downloading unlawful copyright content, and demanding hefty
sums of compensation to avoid the need for proceedings. If I remember rightly, those firms were castigated by the SRA and told to stop doing
it. If anyone can trace any press reports maybe they can supply a link
and tell me if my recollection is correct.
On 13:27 4 Apr 2024, Simon Parker said:
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated
intention is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met although
he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely failure, he
nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his estranged brother
as stressful a time as possible and to rack up the brother's legal
costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
In theory, or in reality?
Threatening litigation or making counterclaims and defence arguments
for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or
advancing legal rights can be considered "Pursuing litigation for
improper purposes" by the SRA.
Similarly, making allegations without merit where the sole purpose is
to stifle an opponent could be considered similarly. (See the SRA's
treatment of those involved in so-called SLAPP cases for their current
thoughts on such litigation.)
Then there's paragraph 1.2 of the SRA's Code of Conduct for Solicitors
which says of solicitors: "you must not abuse your position by taking
unfair advantage of clients or others."
Giving artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines to reply to
correspondence have been considered as "Taking unfair advantage" by
the SRA.
As has threatening litigation where there is no proper legal basis for
a claim, making exaggerated claims of adverse consequences, sending
excessively legalistic letters with the aim of intimidating the other
party, particularly unrepresented or lay parties and sending letters
in abusive, intimidating or aggressive tone or language.
There is case law for excessive litigation and the court's view
thereof, for example see Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc
and others [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm) [2013] [1] and Optimares SpA v
Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) [2] (Spoiler Alert:
Indemnity Costs)
So that's it then? A solicitor must turn away a vexatious client?
As always, the devil is in the detail.
Litigation involves making a client aware of the potential costs,
risks and merits of their case and then putting the case against the
other party in strong terms pursuant to the client's instructions.
Solicitors are not routinely obliged to challenge their own client's
case, although they do have a duty to interrogate and engage properly
with the legal and evidential merits thereof.
They must not advance arguments that they do not consider to be
properly arguable and they must have regard to the rule of law and the
administration of justice.
But there's enough wriggle room in all the above for a skilled
solicitor to stay this side of the line as far as the regulations,
code of conduct and guidance go, whilst still causing the other party
no end of trouble.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/4278.html
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2507.html
There's a lot of technical detail there to digest. Thanks for the
references. It seems that if the work is legitimate then there's no professional obligation to turn the new client away.
However I wonder what tends to happen in practise when a solicitor gets
a sense that his client's motives are highly personal rather than purely legal.
On 05/04/2024 12:16, Pamela wrote:
On 13:27 4 Apr 2024, Simon Parker said:
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated
intention is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met
although he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely
failure, he nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his
estranged brother as stressful a time as possible and to rack up
the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
In theory, or in reality?
Threatening litigation or making counterclaims and defence arguments
for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or
advancing legal rights can be considered "Pursuing litigation for
improper purposes" by the SRA.
Similarly, making allegations without merit where the sole purpose
is to stifle an opponent could be considered similarly. (See the
SRA's treatment of those involved in so-called SLAPP cases for their
current thoughts on such litigation.)
Then there's paragraph 1.2 of the SRA's Code of Conduct for
Solicitors which says of solicitors: "you must not abuse your
position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others."
Giving artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines to reply
to correspondence have been considered as "Taking unfair advantage"
by the SRA.
As has threatening litigation where there is no proper legal basis
for a claim, making exaggerated claims of adverse consequences,
sending excessively legalistic letters with the aim of intimidating
the other party, particularly unrepresented or lay parties and
sending letters in abusive, intimidating or aggressive tone or
language.
There is case law for excessive litigation and the court's view
thereof, for example see Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc
and others [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm) [2013] [1] and Optimares SpA v
Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) [2] (Spoiler
Alert: Indemnity Costs)
So that's it then? A solicitor must turn away a vexatious client?
As always, the devil is in the detail.
Litigation involves making a client aware of the potential costs,
risks and merits of their case and then putting the case against the
other party in strong terms pursuant to the client's instructions.
Solicitors are not routinely obliged to challenge their own client's
case, although they do have a duty to interrogate and engage
properly with the legal and evidential merits thereof.
They must not advance arguments that they do not consider to be
properly arguable and they must have regard to the rule of law and
the administration of justice.
But there's enough wriggle room in all the above for a skilled
solicitor to stay this side of the line as far as the regulations,
code of conduct and guidance go, whilst still causing the other
party no end of trouble.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/4278.html
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2507.html
There's a lot of technical detail there to digest. Thanks for the
references. It seems that if the work is legitimate then there's no
professional obligation to turn the new client away.
However I wonder what tends to happen in practise when a solicitor
gets a sense that his client's motives are highly personal rather
than purely legal.
I don't understand the distinction you're making between personal and
legal.
Sometimes a boundary dispute between neighbours will consume a huge
sum in legal costs. It's often motivated by a firm belief by both
litigants that they are in the right and that they owe it to their
families to fight to the finish. Even when the lawyers strongly advise
that the parties should settle while the costs are still low.
And maybe there are cases where a person feels they have been unfairly dismissed or have been discriminated against at work, and the lawyers
say that any compensation is likely to be extinguished by the likely
costs. Yet the need to be vindicated by a tribunal decision becomes
all important. Are these examples of "personal"?
Instead I mean a situation in which the litigant doesn't really believe he has much of a valid case but nevertheless wants to make a mountain out of
any available legal molehill (even a worm casting would do) purely to cause stress to the other party.
On 15:17 5 Apr 2024, The Todal said:
On 05/04/2024 12:16, Pamela wrote:
On 13:27 4 Apr 2024, Simon Parker said:
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated
intention is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met
although he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely
failure, he nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his
estranged brother as stressful a time as possible and to rack up
the brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
In theory, or in reality?
Threatening litigation or making counterclaims and defence arguments
for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or
advancing legal rights can be considered "Pursuing litigation for
improper purposes" by the SRA.
Similarly, making allegations without merit where the sole purpose
is to stifle an opponent could be considered similarly. (See the
SRA's treatment of those involved in so-called SLAPP cases for their
current thoughts on such litigation.)
Then there's paragraph 1.2 of the SRA's Code of Conduct for
Solicitors which says of solicitors: "you must not abuse your
position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others."
Giving artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines to reply
to correspondence have been considered as "Taking unfair advantage"
by the SRA.
As has threatening litigation where there is no proper legal basis
for a claim, making exaggerated claims of adverse consequences,
sending excessively legalistic letters with the aim of intimidating
the other party, particularly unrepresented or lay parties and
sending letters in abusive, intimidating or aggressive tone or
language.
There is case law for excessive litigation and the court's view
thereof, for example see Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc
and others [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm) [2013] [1] and Optimares SpA v
Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) [2] (Spoiler
Alert: Indemnity Costs)
So that's it then? A solicitor must turn away a vexatious client?
As always, the devil is in the detail.
Litigation involves making a client aware of the potential costs,
risks and merits of their case and then putting the case against the
other party in strong terms pursuant to the client's instructions.
Solicitors are not routinely obliged to challenge their own client's
case, although they do have a duty to interrogate and engage
properly with the legal and evidential merits thereof.
They must not advance arguments that they do not consider to be
properly arguable and they must have regard to the rule of law and
the administration of justice.
But there's enough wriggle room in all the above for a skilled
solicitor to stay this side of the line as far as the regulations,
code of conduct and guidance go, whilst still causing the other
party no end of trouble.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/4278.html
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2507.html
There's a lot of technical detail there to digest. Thanks for the
references. It seems that if the work is legitimate then there's no
professional obligation to turn the new client away.
However I wonder what tends to happen in practise when a solicitor
gets a sense that his client's motives are highly personal rather
than purely legal.
I don't understand the distinction you're making between personal and
legal.
Sometimes a boundary dispute between neighbours will consume a huge
sum in legal costs. It's often motivated by a firm belief by both
litigants that they are in the right and that they owe it to their
families to fight to the finish. Even when the lawyers strongly advise
that the parties should settle while the costs are still low.
And maybe there are cases where a person feels they have been unfairly
dismissed or have been discriminated against at work, and the lawyers
say that any compensation is likely to be extinguished by the likely
costs. Yet the need to be vindicated by a tribunal decision becomes
all important. Are these examples of "personal"?
I appreciate there are cases where a litigant is wrong-headed and perhaps obsessional too, leading to protracted legal conflict in which he genuinely believes he's in the right. Those cases are not what I am asking about.
Instead I mean a situation in which the litigant doesn't really believe he has much of a valid case but nevertheless wants to make a mountain out of
any available legal molehill (even a worm casting would do) purely to cause stress to the other party.
My example to you elsewhere in this thread is of a very wealthy brother who no longer cared if he lost or gained on a property but simply wanted
revenge by harassing his estranged brother by taking him through legal processes.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:17:11 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 05/04/2024 12:16, Pamela wrote:
On 13:27 4 Apr 2024, Simon Parker said:I don't understand the distinction you're making between personal and >>legal.
On 03/04/2024 15:18, Pamela wrote:
How likely is a solicitor to refuse a new client whose stated
intention is to "give them hell"?
I'm asking in general, although I started off by thinking of a very
wealthy friend who was unlikely to get his legal demands met
although he genuinely believed in them. In the event of likely
failure, he nevertheless wanted the satisfaction of giving his
estranged brother as stressful a time as possible and to rack up the >>>>> brother's legal costs.
Would a solicitor typically turn away such a vexatious client?
In theory, or in reality?
Threatening litigation or making counterclaims and defence arguments
for reasons that are not connected to resolving genuine disputes or
advancing legal rights can be considered "Pursuing litigation for
improper purposes" by the SRA.
Similarly, making allegations without merit where the sole purpose is
to stifle an opponent could be considered similarly. (See the SRA's
treatment of those involved in so-called SLAPP cases for their
current thoughts on such litigation.)
Then there's paragraph 1.2 of the SRA's Code of Conduct for
Solicitors which says of solicitors: "you must not abuse your
position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others."
Giving artificially short or wholly unnecessary deadlines to reply to
correspondence have been considered as "Taking unfair advantage" by
the SRA.
As has threatening litigation where there is no proper legal basis
for a claim, making exaggerated claims of adverse consequences,
sending excessively legalistic letters with the aim of intimidating
the other party, particularly unrepresented or lay parties and
sending letters in abusive, intimidating or aggressive tone or
language.
There is case law for excessive litigation and the court's view
thereof, for example see Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc
and others [2013] EWHC 4278 (Comm) [2013] [1] and Optimares SpA v
Qatar Airways Group QCSC [2022] EWHC 2507 (Comm) [2] (Spoiler Alert:
Indemnity Costs)
So that's it then? A solicitor must turn away a vexatious client?
As always, the devil is in the detail.
Litigation involves making a client aware of the potential costs,
risks and merits of their case and then putting the case against the
other party in strong terms pursuant to the client's instructions.
Solicitors are not routinely obliged to challenge their own client's
case, although they do have a duty to interrogate and engage properly
with the legal and evidential merits thereof.
They must not advance arguments that they do not consider to be
properly arguable and they must have regard to the rule of law and
the administration of justice.
But there's enough wriggle room in all the above for a skilled
solicitor to stay this side of the line as far as the regulations,
code of conduct and guidance go, whilst still causing the other party
no end of trouble.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/4278.html [2]
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2507.html
There's a lot of technical detail there to digest. Thanks for the
references. It seems that if the work is legitimate then there's no
professional obligation to turn the new client away.
However I wonder what tends to happen in practise when a solicitor
gets a sense that his client's motives are highly personal rather than
purely legal.
Sometimes a boundary dispute between neighbours will consume a huge sum
in legal costs. It's often motivated by a firm belief by both litigants >>that they are in the right and that they owe it to their families to
fight to the finish. Even when the lawyers strongly advise that the
parties should settle while the costs are still low.
And maybe there are cases where a person feels they have been unfairly >>dismissed or have been discriminated against at work, and the lawyers
say that any compensation is likely to be extinguished by the likely
costs. Yet the need to be vindicated by a tribunal decision becomes all >>important. Are these examples of "personal"?
A slight variation in what Pamela is asking. The client is not motivated
to cause vexation, they are just totally convinced that they are in the right. If a solicitor sees that the client is making a very bad
judgement due to emotion, that the case is entirely groundless and will swiftly be thrown out, should/would a solicitor proceed if the client
rejects the solicitor's advice and insists on proceeding?
On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:01:29 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
<font color="#5856d6">snip</font>
A slight variation in what Pamela is asking. The client is not motivated
to cause vexation, they are just totally convinced that they are in the
right. If a solicitor sees that the client is making a very bad
judgement due to emotion, that the case is entirely groundless and will
swiftly be thrown out, should/would a solicitor proceed if the client
rejects the solicitor's advice and insists on proceeding?
I would imagine the solicitor would advise the client of their
determination of the situation. However if the client insists on
proceeding, I can't see any problem with the solicitor doing so.
Otherwise the situation could arise in which a particularly "sensitive"
case gets rejected by solicitors on their determinations. And that could
lead to certain people being unable to use the courts. Which might
trouble the fiction that the courts are about justice.
I wait with interest to see if
*any* of the key senior players and legal advisors in that scandal are
ever brought to justice...
On 6 Apr 2024 at 21:06:40 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:01:29 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
<font color="#5856d6">snip</font>
A slight variation in what Pamela is asking. The client is not
motivated to cause vexation, they are just totally convinced that they
are in the right. If a solicitor sees that the client is making a very
bad judgement due to emotion, that the case is entirely groundless and
will swiftly be thrown out, should/would a solicitor proceed if the
client rejects the solicitor's advice and insists on proceeding?
I would imagine the solicitor would advise the client of their
determination of the situation. However if the client insists on
proceeding, I can't see any problem with the solicitor doing so.
Otherwise the situation could arise in which a particularly "sensitive"
case gets rejected by solicitors on their determinations. And that
could lead to certain people being unable to use the courts. Which
might trouble the fiction that the courts are about justice.
And that anyone should be allowed to buy it!
A solicitor is not allowed to put forward a case which he knows to be dishonest or which is unduly oppressive to the opponent.
My recollection is that years ago, solicitors were sending out letters
before action to ordinary householders saying that they had been
discovered downloading unlawful copyright content, and demanding hefty
sums of compensation to avoid the need for proceedings. If I remember rightly, those firms were castigated by the SRA and told to stop doing
it. If anyone can trace any press reports maybe they can supply a link
and tell me if my recollection is correct.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:47:01 +0100, The Todal wrote...
A solicitor is not allowed to put forward a case which he knows to be
dishonest or which is unduly oppressive to the opponent.
My recollection is that years ago, solicitors were sending out letters
before action to ordinary householders saying that they had been
discovered downloading unlawful copyright content, and demanding hefty
sums of compensation to avoid the need for proceedings. If I remember
rightly, those firms were castigated by the SRA and told to stop doing
it. If anyone can trace any press reports maybe they can supply a link
and tell me if my recollection is correct.
They got their come-uppance at the hands of Judge Colin Birss[1] in the Patents County Court[2] and subsequently in Solicitors Regulation
Authority disciplinary proceedings as you say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law
Birss decisions:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/18.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html
I believe there was another firm which carried on similar practices subsequently, but not as solicitors (and so unregulated). I don't know
what happened to them.
----------------
[1] Now Lord Justice Birss in the Court of Appeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Birss
[2] Since morphed into the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which
is part of the High Court rather than a County Court
They got their come-uppance at the hands of Judge Colin Birss[1] in the Patents County Court[2] and subsequently in Solicitors Regulation
Authority disciplinary proceedings as you say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law
Birss decisions:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/18.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:40:04 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote...
[ACS:Law]
They got their come-uppance at the hands of Judge Colin Birss[1] in the
Patents County Court[2] and subsequently in Solicitors Regulation
Authority disciplinary proceedings as you say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law
Birss decisions:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/18.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html
ACS:Law had sent a huge number of threatening letters, and started to
issue proceedings in the Patents County Court against people who hadn't
paid up immediately.
They evidently believed, first, that most of those people would cave and
pay up before their case got anywhere near a judge.
And second, that if a few defendants still stood their ground, they
could just withdraw those cases. So it would still get nowhere near a
judge.
What they hadn't reckoned on was that Birss had just been appointed,
with a mandate to revitalise the near-moribund PCC and sort out its
problems. He started by going through the pending caseload, and spotted
a large number of near-identical ACS:Law cases.
Worth reading the decisions I've linked in order, from the first one
where he evidently smelled a rat, through to subsequent ones where
ACS:Law tried to withdraw but Birss wouldn't let them, to the final one
where he awarded costs against the solicitors themselves (not just
against their puppet client).
I believe there was another firm which carried on similar practices subsequently, but not as solicitors (and so unregulated). I don't know
what happened to them.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:56:59 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,173 |
| Posted today: | 1 |