# Problem with Solicitor



## duchalla (17 Feb 2009)

Hi,

My son bought a house and a small piece of land 10 years ago off a family friend. We had the 1 solicitor to look after the sale. As a gesture of good will, the friend agreed to pay all the legal fees.  During the 10 years both my son and I have have called to the solicitor on quite a few occasions to get the deeds off the solicitor.  She always had some excuse, they were with the land registery and she would contact us as soon as they came back.
Last year, my son sold the house to my daughter, so obiviously he needed the deeds to proceed with the sale, called to the solr again to get the deeds, anyway to cut a long story short, the documentation had been sitting at the bottom of her inbox for the last 10 years, she then started to do the work that she should have done 10 years ago, started sending my son bills for this and that, when i confronted her told her that all the legal fees had been paid by the family friend, she backed off, saying thats grand, he doesn't owe any money.
When we finally got the deeds off her, we brought them to my daughters solicitor, he said that they were in a total mess, the house had been transfered but the land was still in the family friends name.  So the whole thing had to be re done.  My son has just gotten a bill for €3,000 from my daughters solr. for work that the original solr should have done and |presume got paid for. Obiviously, my daughters solr has to get paid, what im wondering is why should my son pay for for the incompitence of the original slor? Legally, has he any come back?  The family friend is now elderly and i dont want to be bothering him with this.  Any advice, would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## mf1 (17 Feb 2009)

1. Two parties engaged in such a transaction should never, ever, use the same solicitor . It is a false economy.  
2. Pay the bill. Move on with the case. Then contact the  first solicitor and ask that she reimburse the fees and outlays now incurred. Whether yes/no, consider reporting her to the Law Society. 
3. Talk to the old family friend and see if they did indeed pay the first solicitor any money. 

mf


----------



## duchalla (17 Feb 2009)

tanx for that mf, thats what I was thinking of doin.  probably have to get on to the family friend to find out his story.  When I tried to make an appointment to see the original slor.,  I was told she wouldn't see me and any future correspondence will have to be done through my solicitor! what action can the law society take?  Im not goin to let this go, My family and I had made  numerous efforts to get the deeds of the property, only to be lied to my face time and time again by this joke.


----------



## DubShelley (17 Feb 2009)

duchalla said:


> tanx for that mf, thats what I was thinking of doin. probably have to get on to the family friend to find out his story. When I tried to make an appointment to see the original slor., I was told she wouldn't see me and any future correspondence will have to be done through my solicitor! what action can the law society take? Im not goin to let this go, My family and I had made numerous efforts to get the deeds of the property, only to be lied to my face time and time again by this joke.


 
Send a registered letter to the original solicitor stating that you needed to meet with her discuss the original case. Mention in it that failure on her part to meet with you will unfortunately result in you having to take the matter further, i.e. to the law society. 

If she still refuses to speak to you then go to the law society. There is a [broken link removed]on their website which explains how to approach them with complaints. It does mention that _"__The Society can’t deal with complaints about services provided more than five years ago."..._however as you have been trying to get this information from her on more than one occassion since she originally took the case, you should still be able to make the complaint.

Good luck!!


----------



## mf1 (17 Feb 2009)

At this stage, she does not have to see you. In fact, reviewing this, you were never her client so she never had to have any dealings with you at all. However, it might ease tensions if she did see your son and gave him some explanations. 

So, its up to your son ( not you). What does your son want to do?  If a complaint is made, by your son and /or the family friend, to the Law Society and upheld, they will censure her and it is likely that they will order her to pay your son's increased costs. She is also likely to be fined and details of the isssues published in the Law Society Gazette. This will mean acute embarassment and seriously bad publicity for her. 

This won't be a popular statement  but this does not appear to me to be a life or death  situation. Your son ( not you) has incurred minor fees and some inconvenience but largely has suffered no lasting damage. Some people enjoy the whole "in your face" " point of principle" "I won't be treated  like that" confrontational, aggravational thing. Some people simply feel that this level of service is entirely unacceptable - notwithstanding that they did not pay anything for it. At all. - and that such slipshod behaviour should be pulled up by the  appropriate authorities so that other clients (paying or non paying) should not have to suffer similar behaviour. And some people say, d'ya know what? let it go. Recover the fees paid and walk away. 

To each their own.

mf


----------



## Ghodadaba (18 Feb 2009)

mf1 said:


> This won't be a popular statement but this does not appear to me to be a life or death situation. Your son ( not you) has incurred minor fees and some inconvenience but largely has suffered no lasting damage.


 
I think €3000 qualifies as more than "minor fees", and 10 years of hassle followed by an administrative mess when it came to the latest transaction requiring a clean-up job by another solicitor, qualifies as more than "some inconvenience". To an ordinary punter with no legal background, I can imagine that that could be a very distressing experience.

It also doesn't matter whether the OP's son was the one paying for the service or not. Provided the fees were in fact duly handed over to the incompetent solicitor by the elderly relative 10 years ago, then the work should have been completed in a professional manner.

I also am not sure many people would "enjoy" such a potentially stressful confrontation with a legal professional. The OP's son is right to complain if s/he feels wronged and it is perfectly reasonable for him to seek to be comensated for losses. 

To the OP - Get your son to send the original solicitor a registered letter, stating a reasonable deadline to reimburse the €3000. You should also explain the situation to the elderly relative and ask him if he is willing to sign the letter also. You might not want to involve him, but he was the paying client after all.

If your son gets no reply or no €3000 by the deadline, then he should complain to the Law Society and let them deal with it. But he should have very little to worry about. On the basis of the information you have provided, the solicitor is clearly at fault and incompetent.


----------



## mf1 (18 Feb 2009)

What damage ( apart from the extra fees ) has the son suffered?

How much compensation should he get? Will that make him feel better? 

I see no evidence of 10 years of hassle.  

mf


----------



## Bronte (19 Feb 2009)

mf1 said:


> What damage ( apart from the extra fees ) has the son suffered?
> 
> How much compensation should he get? Will that make him feel better?
> 
> ...


I cannot believe you would write this.  You do not think that a solicitor who has lied on numerous occasions, had not done the work in 10 years, then did the work but incompetently, taken the fee at the beginning but anyway sent bills not owing (after 10 years)  is just basically a slight inconvenience?  Do you think extra fees of 3K are nothing?  Furthermore it could have resulted in a lost sale.  Are you not outraged that a member of your profession acts in this manner.


----------



## MOB (19 Feb 2009)

To be fair to MF1, previous post makes it quite clear what remedies are open to OP's son.  

I find this whole saga a little odd.  

Firstly, why on earth would a purchaser expect the vendor to pay the purchaser's fees? And get vendor's solicitor to do the work? 

Secondly, - though it is certainly possible that the solicitor did not go through it in proper detail with OP's son- how on earth did neither vendor nor purchaser notice that the contract and transfer as originally prepared did not include all that was intended to be transferred?    Who prepared the transfer map?  Did neither vendor nor purchaser look at it?


Thirdly why on earth would a transfer (by way of rectification) of a field incur €3000 in legal fees ( which is circa €2500 plus VAT).  I regularly do (voluntary) transfers of sites for 500\600 + VAT, and I am not a cheap solicitor.  How much more did the daughter have to pay on top of this €3,000?  

As is, I suppose, inevitable we are only getting one side of the story, and I rather suspect that the whole story - if we had it -  is rather more mundane than it appears.


----------



## duchalla (19 Feb 2009)

mf1 said:


> What damage ( apart from the extra fees ) has the son suffered?
> 
> How much compensation should he get? Will that make him feel better?
> 
> ...


 

The whole incident has placed an unbelieveable amouny of stress on our family, you might find €3000 a small amount of money, but believe me I could do alot with 3 grand.
As for compensation, gimme the €3000, yes, that will make me feel better.
whats your definiaton of hassle? 10 years later and the job still wasn't done, 10YEARS!!! doesn't that seem the slightest bit strange to you?


----------



## duchalla (19 Feb 2009)

MOB said:


> To be fair to MF1, previous post makes it quite clear what remedies are open to OP's son.
> 
> I find this whole saga a little odd.
> 
> ...


 

Firstly, We didn't expect the vendor to pay our fees, he insisted on paying them.  He is a close family friend and there is a history between our 2 families which has gone back 2 generations.  Maybe we were a bit naive in getting the 1 solicitor to do the work, but at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do, hindsight is always 20/20.

Secondly, how could we check to see what was in the contracts when the she has had them for the 10 years? despite numerous efforts on our part to get the whole thing finalised. According to her, the contracts were always somewhere else getting stamped or whatever, we were told to call back in a few weeks, but it was the same old story every time,

Thirdly, the transfer was quite complicated. It involved water, right of way issues,etc. There was 2 seperate transfers to be done, house and land. I dont want to go into it in too much detail. My daughters solicitor said the whole thing was left in a complete mess.  The bill was for the transfer of house and land from family friend to my son and from my son to my daughter, so the €3000 will be minus costs between my son and daughter.


----------



## duchalla (19 Feb 2009)

MOB said:


> To be fair to MF1, previous post makes it quite clear what remedies are open to OP's son.
> 
> I find this whole saga a little odd.
> 
> ...


 

Firstly, We didn't expect the vendor to pay our fees, he insisted on paying them.  He is a close family friend and there is a history between our 2 families which has gone back 2 generations.  Maybe we were a bit naive in getting the 1 solicitor to do the work, but at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do, hindsight is always 20/20.

Secondly, how could we check to see what was in the contracts when the she has had them for the 10 years? despite numerous efforts on our part to get the whole thing finalised. According to her, the contracts were always somewhere else getting stamped or whatever, we were told to call back in a few weeks, but it was the same old story every time,

Thirdly, the transfer was quite complicated. It involved water, right of way issues,etc. There was 2 seperate transfers to be done, house and land. I dont want to go into it in too much detail. My daughters solicitor said the whole thing was left in a complete mess.  The bill was for the transfer of house and land from family friend to my son and from my son to my daughter, so the €3000 will be minus costs between my son and daughter.


----------



## MOB (19 Feb 2009)

"so the €3000 will be minus costs between my son and daughter"

Sorry to hone in on this one small aspect; but just to be clear: the previous solicitor therefore didn't in fact cost your family €3,000.  The €3,000 now includes your sons's costs on the sale to your daughter and your daughters costs on the purchase ( and perhaps a mortgage??).

And if I might hone in on another aspect - it now seems that the transfer was  quite complicated.  There is clearly more to this than was obvious in first post - slack ( VERY slack, it must be said) service notwithstanding.   

And as to 

"how could we check to see what was in the contracts when the she has had them for the 10 years? "

it doesn't really answer the question as to why nobody looked at or appeared to have comprehended what was being signed before it disappeared into the solicitors inbox for the ten years;  ( I am aware of course that some solicitors can sometimes tend to say 'sign here, here and here......' rather than going through the documents fully with the client;  but it seems very odd that it should have happened in this case)


----------



## mf1 (19 Feb 2009)

Bronte said:


> I cannot believe you would write this.  You do not think that a solicitor who has lied on numerous occasions, had not done the work in 10 years, then did the work but incompetently, taken the fee at the beginning but anyway sent bills not owing (after 10 years)  is just basically a slight inconvenience?  Do you think extra fees of 3K are nothing?  Furthermore it could have resulted in a lost sale.  Are you not outraged that a member of your profession acts in this manner.



If you check my earlier posts you will see the advice given. I did not use the expression  "slight inconvenience" - I said it was not a life or death situation. 

Could have / might have's are not things you can claim compensation for.  

I try to avoid being outraged, about anything,  on internet websites. I think its a pointless exercise.  

mf


----------



## Bronte (19 Feb 2009)

MOB said:


> Firstly, why on earth would a purchaser expect the vendor to pay the purchaser's fees? And get vendor's solicitor to do the work?
> 
> Secondly, - though it is certainly possible that the solicitor did not go through it in proper detail with OP's son- how on earth did neither vendor nor purchaser notice that the contract and transfer as originally prepared did not include all that was intended to be transferred? Who prepared the transfer map? Did neither vendor nor purchaser look at it?


 
It would be quite common in the past where there was a close relationship/friendship between parties for them to use one solicitor.  It may not happen nowadays but is used to happen so I don't see how you think it's unusual.  

As for suggesting that the clients read the contracts, most people think and believe that the solicitor will do everything properly in the first place.  After all that's why he would have been hired in the first place.   While I realise it's best if a client reads a contract, they are not legally trained and what percentage of your clients read the contract from cover to cover?  Even if someone were to read part of the contract they would probably only read the signing page and not the bit which is describing what is being transferred not amind the special conditions nor clauses knowed out (in the interest of builders in particular).  I'm not trying to be on the OP's side but a bit of balance to point out both sides.  I'm afraid 'VERY slack' doesn't cut it unless the OP comes back with something more substantial.


----------



## MOB (19 Feb 2009)

Hi Bronte,

You are making a valid point, but I was addressing a slightly different issue.  

I would not expect a client to read and understand all the conditions of a contract.  That is my job.  They want to know that it is basically alright and that I am protecting their interests, and in this regard they don't want to 'sweat the details'.

However, I don't know exactly what the client has agreed to buy.  The client does.  So it is absolutely the case that I would, for example, show a client the map on the contract or transfer deed and ask them "is this what you are buying?"   

If there was any doubt, I would suggest getting an architect\engineer\surveyor to take a look. 

It seems very odd indeed ( not impossible, but very, very odd) that a transfer could have been signed without either the vendor or purchaser knowing precisely what plot of ground was actually changing hands or without being shown and having a chance to query or correct it.


----------



## dazza21ie (19 Feb 2009)

duchalla said:


> My daughters solicitor said the whole thing was left in a complete mess. The bill was for the transfer of house and land from family friend to my son and from my son to my daughter, so the €3000 will be minus costs between my son and daughter.


 
Hmm a solicitor tells you it is "a complete mess" and then gives you a large legal bill. Without reading the particular file it is impossible to say who is telling you the truth but it is not unheard of for some solicitors (or trades people for that matter) to go on about how bad the person before his/her was and then bump up their own bill accordingly for fixing the mess. Just playing devil's advocate here!


----------



## Bronte (20 Feb 2009)

mf1 said:


> If you check my earlier posts you will see the advice given. I did not use the expression "slight inconvenience" - I said it was not a life or death situation.
> 
> Could have / might have's are not things you can claim compensation for.
> 
> ...


HI MF1 you posted while I was doing my other post.  My point is not about compensation, a client whether a paying client or not (I don't see your point about this) has a right to proper service, 10 years is really quite extraordinary.  Do you not agree?  And I believe solicitors should be outraged at what some of their colleagues get up to.  Not for one minute do I believe that you don't get title documents in that are a complete mess due to the incompetence of previous solicitors transactions.  But as you are all 'colleagues' you have the tendancy to not highlight this, it's a very nice club that leads to the likes of ML, Byrne et al.   Until your profession starts to whistle blow on each other and that includes here on AAM things will not change.  Same applies to bankers etc.  There is a long way between life or death situation and slight inconvenience.  It's also not fair that I'm the only one to point this out and I always seem to be having these battles.  Would you believe that when I saw your first post I was quite happy because I thought there was a sea change in that you referred immediately to the route of going down the Law society complaints procedure so I thought that's fine so it wasn't until I saw your second post that I decided to reply to the OP.  I suppose the mods are going to delete this but I'd like to see a change for the better in Irish society so that the carry on of this behaviour by professionals is a thing of the past.


----------



## Bronte (20 Feb 2009)

And OP sorry if I've wandered off topic.


----------



## duchalla (20 Feb 2009)

MOB said:


> Hi Bronte,
> 
> You are making a valid point, but I was addressing a slightly different issue.
> 
> ...


 

You're missing the point.  My son knew exactly what he was buying, the vendor knew exactly what he was selling, we had an engineer draw up the plans. This wasn't the problem.  The problem was why did the solicitor take 10 years to start work on the job? why were we lied to on numerous occasions?  where were the deeds during all this time?  Why did the solicitor send bills to my son and when confronted immediately backed off? I could go on and on. Im an ordinary joe with no legal training  but even I know somthing smells rotten here.


----------



## mf1 (20 Feb 2009)

"But as you are all 'colleagues' you have the tendancy to not highlight this, it's a very nice club that leads to the likes of ML, Byrne et al. "

You're kidding, right? Cos otherwise I wonder if you ever read the consistently practical, sensible posts of other solicitors on this board? 

You are defending a situation that you know nothing about for a poster who has no track record on this board who has not dealt with any of the issues that MOB has raised.

"It's also not fair that I'm the only one to point this out and I always seem to be having these battles. Would you believe that when I saw your first post I was quite happy because I thought there was a sea change in that you referred immediately to the route of going down the Law society complaints procedure so I thought that's fine so it wasn't until I saw your second post that I decided to reply to the OP. I suppose the mods are going to delete this but I'd like to see a change for the better in Irish society so that the carry on of this behaviour by professionals is a thing of the past. "

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by any of this! This is an internet site where people post freely - it is not a confessional and it is not a tribunal of enquiry. You are not obliged to defend anyone or point anything out. 

There are always bad apples in any profession - its just downright silly to accuse an entire profession of protecting their own in this day and age. We do not rally round and protect criminals. But I will query a newcomer who posts a version of events which does not reflect  the total story and who then retreats into what I call "Joe Duffy" land. The land where only the headlines and high emotions matter and facts  are largely irrelevant. 

mf


----------



## MOB (20 Feb 2009)

Hi Duchalla,

I have a difficulty reconciling your comment

"the house had been transfered but the land was still in the family friends name. "

and your comment that

"My son knew exactly what he was buying, the vendor knew exactly what he was selling, we had an engineer draw up the plans. This wasn't the problem."

It is of course possible that the land was omitted solely due to error on the part of the solicitor.  But it seems very odd if, as you say, plans were prepared by your engineer  ( I assum that by 'plan' you mean a transfer map).   If the solicitor prepared a deed which did indeed transfer ownership of what was shown on the plan, then it is hard to see how the solicitor could fairly be accused of having got it wrong.   

Obviously, I am commenting without having all the facts;  I do of course acknowledge that it is entirely possible that the solicitor did in fact make a complete bags of things.  I am just saying that while the the facts which we have been given certainly show a culpable delay, I am not really convinced that we have seen culpability on the accusation of 'making a complete mess of things'.


----------



## duchalla (20 Feb 2009)

Hi MOB,

Before the sale took place, we went to a engineer, got him to mark off the site (house and Land) which was being sold and got him to draw up the revelant plans (sorry for not using the correct speak). Everyone knew what was being sold. These were all submitted to the slor for her to do her side of it.  contracts were signed by both parties, but never processed.  It was only when my son sold the property to my daughter  that we discovered that even though the house was in my sons name, the land wasn't. So legally, it wasn't his to sell even though he had paid for it. 
I know I might sound if Im flogging a dead horse here, but 10 years seems a crazy amount of time to do a job, (and not even do it properly), which should normally take a couple of months max.


----------



## mf1 (20 Feb 2009)

Well having taken this entirely off course.............

It does seem to me that this is a mess. You've ( or rather your son) gotten someone to fix it. it is now fixed . He will probably recover the 3K from the first solicitor. Whether or not he does, he can report her to the Law Socity but, to be honest, ( and I am entirely leaving aside the 10 year issue) if and/or when he does that he should make himself far more aware of what actually happened. If he is unable to coherently  explain the issue ( other than the time period) he will be met with the same bewildered queries as you've been met with. 

Ultimately, taking out the irritation factor, apart from the fees incurred, he has not suffered a financial loss. 

mf


----------

