# Solicitor coming off record



## John joe

My solicitor is due to come off record in the high court. I understand from my solicitor that I will have to pay these costs. I dont understand why I should have to foot the bill for this as hes coming off record due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account.

Anybody have any experience of getting a solicitor off record?


----------



## dazza21ie

The solicitor has billed for work done to date. If you are unhappy with the Bill you can ask for it to be taxed or complain to the Law Society.


----------



## John joe

ajapale said:


> Am I missing something here?
> 
> Your solicitor is coming off (or is being struck off the legal register) and you (an ordinary client) have to pay the costs? What about his other clients? Surely he is liable for the costs himself. What costs is he claiming you are liable for?
> 
> Perhaps you are liable for costs all ready incurred by this solicitor when acting on your behalf? Do you have a new solicitor? What do they advise?
> 
> aj


 
The solicitor is paid in full to date. The cost I am talking about are the High Court cost for him coming off record.? He is only coming off my record. He will continue to work for any of his other clients.

I do not have a new solicitor, I am representing myself.


----------



## mathepac

John joe said:


> ...
> I do not have a new solicitor, I am representing myself.


I don't believe you will be allowed to in a High Court action. I suggest you ring the Law Society about this situation.


----------



## dazza21ie

mathepac said:


> I don't believe you will be allowed to in a High Court action. I suggest you ring the Law Society about this situation.


 
I think the OP can represent himself, whether he should is a totally different question.


----------



## bond-007

Correct, you can represent yourself in any court in the land. Nothing to stop you, but the presiding judge will advise him of the pitfalls and recommend he seeks legal advice.


----------



## John joe

Ok I undersand that someone can represent themselves and its not uncommon for people to do this due to cost of the solicitors in this country and the loss in trust due to the recent media of the Law society of Ireland finding solicitors for corruption in the legal system.

 In my first post I have asked of bill for solicitor coming off record? and who should have to foot the bill if it was the solicitor that was found guilty?


----------



## mathepac

John joe said:


> ...
> In my first post I have asked of bill for solicitor coming off record? and who should have to foot the bill if it was the solicitor that was found guilty?





mathepac said:


> .... I suggest you ring the Law Society about this situation.


----------



## Hasslehoff

Hi John Joe
The Law Society and the H/Court will consent to the solicitor coming off record for you, however they (LS) must find another solicitor to then come on record for you if you cannot find one yourself. If your previous solicitor is seeking money for coming off record then talk to the Law Society, as far as I am aware he may try to seek these costs however you would then take an action against him under his Professional Indemnity insurance policy which covers such situations , therefore your loss will be recovered from his insurer. So you can tell him and his insurer (the Law Society will provide you with the policy number and insurer even if he will not) that you will not pay the money and if he seeks to recover the funds from you will take an action for those costs plus the costs (if any) for having to transfer a case to another solicitor since I am sure this will mean a delay in your proceedings amongst other things.
 
So do sweat it , call the LS to clarify the costs issue and inform his insurer that you wish to take an action under his PI policy. Oh by the way if you have difficulty with his insurer the LS will provide you with a list of solicitors who will take action against another however the insurer would be foolish to deny the allegation/negligence if the events as you described them took place.


----------



## John joe

Thank you very much Hasslehoff that was useful information to me. I will be writing to the Law society as its in the complaints procedure policy that all correspondence must be done in writing and not by phone- just for your clarification and thanks once again.


----------



## mf1

"Hi John Joe
The Law Society and the H/Court will consent to the solicitor coming off record for you, however they (LS) must find another solicitor to then come on record for you if you cannot find one yourself. If your previous solicitor is seeking money for coming off record then talk to the Law Society, as far as I am aware he may try to seek these costs however you would then take an action against him under his Professional Indemnity insurance policy which covers such situations , therefore your loss will be recovered from his insurer. So you can tell him and his insurer (the Law Society will provide you with the policy number and insurer even if he will not) that you will not pay the money and if he seeks to recover the funds from you will take an action for those costs plus the costs (if any) for having to transfer a case to another solicitor since I am sure this will mean a delay in your proceedings amongst other things.

So do sweat it , call the LS to clarify the costs issue and inform his insurer that you wish to take an action under his PI policy. Oh by the way if you have difficulty with his insurer the LS will provide you with a list of solicitors who will take action against another however the insurer would be foolish to deny the allegation/negligence if the events as you described them took place."

I'm a solicitor and I do not understand the above post. It does not appear to take account of the facts as presented.

Go back to the facts. JJ's solicitor no longer wishes to represent JJ in a case that JJ is taking. No-one can force a solicitor to act for someone. The Law Society have no obligation to find JJ another solicitor. None.  

In any event, JJ wishes to represent himself.If JJ was going to another solicitor, there would be no need for the first solicitor to come off record - the new solicitor would simply come on record. So the first solicitor wishes to come off record and is obliged by law to make an application to Court for liberty of the Court to do so. As a matter of course, he will seek an order for his costs - if JJ was going to another solicitor he would not need to make the Court application. He is unlikely to get an order for his costs or even if he does, he is unlikely to pursue JJ. So the whole Professional Indemnity thing above is of no relevance.  

The reason why this solicitor wishes to come off record is because he no longer wishes to act. He is allowed to do that

mf


----------



## efm

John joe said:


> ......as hes coming off record due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account.


 
Mf1,

Does it matter that the solicitor is coming off record because the LS found against him in relation to his dealings with the OP's money (presumably)?


----------



## Vanilla

I didn't understand Hasslehoffs post either but it sounded as if he knew more about the OP's situation than was posted. Because I could not draw the same inferences from what HAS been posted already.


----------



## Dachshund

There was a previous query on Askaboutmoney about a solicitor coming off record. The link to the thread is here.

The circumstances seem similar to those of John joe.


----------



## mf1

"Mf1,

Does it matter that the solicitor is coming off record because the LS found against him in relation to his dealings with the OP's money (presumably)?"

I think he is coming off record because he no longer wishes to represent OP. The fact that OP has posted that he is coming off record "due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account." (sic). only means that there was a complaint some or all of which was upheld by the LS. 

We have only one side of this - I would be fairly ticked off and would  not wish to act for a client who had complained about me to the LS. 

mf


----------



## efm

mf1 said:


> I would be fairly ticked off and would not wish to act for a client who had complained about me to the LS.


 
Even if the client had a valid complaint and this complaint was upheld by the Law Society ?


----------



## Hasslehoff

_"I'm a solicitor and I do not understand the above post. It does not appear to take account of the facts as presented." Really ?? and Really ??, well possibly and I suppose the term "Misappropriation of funds" is chapter from Lord of the Rings too.
_ 
Go back to the facts. JJ's solicitor no longer wishes to represent JJ in a case that JJ is taking. No-one can force a solicitor to act for someone. The Law Society have no obligation to find JJ another solicitor. None. _[ well actually JJ stated that the solicitor has to come off record at the behest of the LS , not JJ's choice, so if the practice is being wrapped up or suspended the LS after the investigation hands the files to other solicitors or a particular firm, but we do not know the exact background so the LS will advise JJ on that ]_

In any event, JJ wishes to represent himself. If JJ was going to another solicitor, there would be no need for the first solicitor to come off record - the new solicitor would simply come on record. So the first solicitor wishes to come off record and is obliged by law to make an application to Court for liberty of the Court to do so. As a matter of course, he will seek an order for his costs - if JJ was going to another solicitor he would not need to make the Court application. He is unlikely to get an order for his costs or even if he does, he is unlikely to pursue JJ _[ I take your point as I allured to in layman's terms (The Law Society and the H/Court will consent to the solicitor coming off record for you)]
MF1 - it is dangerous to presume that an order will not be granted and in that regard JJ should oppose the order and also alert the solicitors insurer.
" _So the whole Professional Indemnity thing above is of no relevance." - _Really so the potential for extra costs on JJ's part , the delay in his proceedings , the negligence of the solicitor both in tort and contract and perhaps something that smells of a criminal nature is of no relevance to the insurer of the solicitor! Are you crazy ? _


_MF1 "_The fact that OP has posted that he is coming off record "due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account." (sic). only means that there was a complaint some or all of which was upheld by the LS. " _Yeah , sure that's all it was only a little indiscretion on behalf of the solicitor, better now.JJ best to try Loomes & Burke Solicitors they are up on Tea Leaf Street  
_


----------



## Vanilla

Hasslehoff said:


> _"I'm a solicitor and I do not understand the above post. It does not appear to take account of the facts as presented." Really ?? and Really ??, well possibly and I suppose the term "Misappropriation of funds" is chapter from Lord of the Rings too._
> 
> Go back to the facts. JJ's solicitor no longer wishes to represent JJ in a case that JJ is taking. No-one can force a solicitor to act for someone. The Law Society have no obligation to find JJ another solicitor. None. _[ well actually JJ stated that the solicitor has to come off record at the behest of the LS , not JJ's choice, so if the practice is being wrapped up or suspended the LS after the investigation hands the files to other solicitors or a particular firm, but we do not know the exact background so the LS will advise JJ on that ]_
> 
> In any event, JJ wishes to represent himself. If JJ was going to another solicitor, there would be no need for the first solicitor to come off record - the new solicitor would simply come on record. So the first solicitor wishes to come off record and is obliged by law to make an application to Court for liberty of the Court to do so. As a matter of course, he will seek an order for his costs - if JJ was going to another solicitor he would not need to make the Court application. He is unlikely to get an order for his costs or even if he does, he is unlikely to pursue JJ _[ I take your point as I allured to in layman's terms (The Law Society and the H/Court will consent to the solicitor coming off record for you)]_
> _MF1 - it is dangerous to presume that an order will not be granted and in that regard JJ should oppose the order and also alert the solicitors insurer._
> _" _So the whole Professional Indemnity thing above is of no relevance." - _Really so the potential for extra costs on JJ's part , the delay in his proceedings , the negligence of the solicitor both in tort and contract and perhaps something that smells of a criminal nature is of no relevance to the insurer of the solicitor! Are you crazy ? _
> 
> 
> _MF1 "_The fact that OP has posted that he is coming off record "due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account." (sic). only means that there was a complaint some or all of which was upheld by the LS. " _Yeah , sure that's all it was only a little indiscretion on behalf of the solicitor, better now.JJ best to try Loomes & Burke Solicitors they are up on Tea Leaf Street _


 
I cannot understand your post at all. Maybe try reformatting it and try to make it clearer where you are quoting and where you are replying. That might help a bit. Maybe.


----------



## mf1

efm said:


> Even if the client had a valid complaint and this complaint was upheld by the Law Society ?




If you were the solicitor, would you wish to continue to act? 
If you were the client, would you want the solicitor to continue to act? 

Hasslehoff - you need to read the entire post. You are not dealing with the facts as presented. OP has stated that solicitor is only coming off record as regards him. No-one else. The fact that OP has posted that he is coming off record "due to the Law Society of Ireland finding him for been dishonest in my client account." (sic). only means that there was a complaint some or all of which was upheld by the LS. It does not mean that it is at the behest of the LS.

mf


----------



## John joe

ok just to clarify some things for the posters here. The said solicitor is coming off my record due to the Law Society finding him guilty on my client account which subsequently lead to the solicitor having to return my money!!


----------



## mf1

John joe said:


> ok just to clarify some things for the posters here. The said solicitor is coming off my record due to the Law Society finding him guilty on my client account which subsequently lead to the solicitor having to return my money!!



Has the Law Society demanded/insisted/ recommended that your solicitor  come off record? 

Or has your solicitor decided that they do not wish to act for you anymore? For whatever reason? Do you understand why this solicitor is coming off record? 

And have you posted before  in the thread Dachshund referred to? Is this the same set of circumstances?

mf


----------



## Hasslehoff

MF1 I have read the entire post , unlike you, who failed to read mine or ignore it or perhaps only heard a whizz when it flew above your head.


The LS will advise the solicitor to come off record , if he does not it is akin to a company Director trading recklessly. The LS may in this instance then seek to have the particular solicitor struck off so the emphasis is always protecting the client.

Dipping into clients funds was once an everyday occurrence but now it is something that the LS wish to stamp out, I am sure that JJ is not the only one who has discrepancies. Case Closed


----------



## John joe

mf1 said:


> Has the Law Society demanded/insisted/ recommended that your solicitor come off record?
> 
> Or has your solicitor decided that they do not wish to act for you anymore? For whatever reason? Do you understand why this solicitor is coming off record?
> 
> And have you posted before in the thread Dachshund referred to? Is this the same set of circumstances?
> 
> mf


 
No, I have ask that he come off record. He wanted to hand it over to another solicitor and even set me up with a reference number and a solicitors name that I was to contact. However I knew what his tricks were, that he would be in a position to blackmail me whenever he had another solicitor working on the case he would therefore inform his friend solicitor about myslef contacting the Law Society.

Thing that has ****ed me off about my crooked solicitor is that previous to me contacting the Law Society, I wrote to him when i noticed decrepencies in my money account. I always believe in offering someone a chance which I did and has asked him about the "double charging" and failing to provide me with a section 68 letter. In his reply he immediately went on the defensive, got his back up and denied everything and said that he has now encountered further fees(At this stage I sensed blackmail). But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me. What rights did I have between myself and my solicitor? NONE. I mean why whenever you go to question someone about my own money that they get so defensive about it. It would have been in his best interest to admit to his dishonesty as it has now cost him over 7k. At the end of the day I win solicitor looses.


----------



## dazza21ie

Hasslehoff said:


> Dipping into clients funds was once an everyday occurrence but now it is something that the LS wish to stamp out, I am sure that JJ is not the only one who has discrepancies. Case Closed


 
Don't tar all solicitors with the one brush. The Law Society have always been very strict when it comes to a solicitors client account. There are very stringent requirements for solicitors under their Accounts Regulations. The recent high profile cases don't represent the profession as a whole.


----------



## MOB

"But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me."

Sorry to be mean about this, but I simply don't believe this.  My gut instinct is that:

1.   The solicitor had money in his client account belonging to the OP and applied some or all of it toward fees and outlays without first getting agreement on the bill. 

2.  There was a dispute about fees charged.   


3.  The OP complained to the Law Society and the solicitor (having been lax in issuing S.68 letter and perhaps also not having been sufficiently up-front on the fees to be charged) took the pragmatic attitude that it was better to refund the fees and write off the whole thing to experience, rather than try to defend the charges.  

If this is what happened, then it certainly falls short of good and acceptable practice, but it also falls well short of theft.  If the client had money sitting there with the solicitor, and if it was not intended to be used to fund the costs of the case, it kinda begs the question as to why the money was left with the solicitor at all.

Regarding the original query, I am afraid I do not have an answer.  The application to come off record is something the solicitor wants to do.    It would not be normal to charge specifically for this as a stand-alone item. If I were coming off record, I would not bill the client for the cost of my application, and I cannot say if the solicitor is entitled to bill for it (I just don't know).   But it would be normal for the solicitor to require that his fees to date be discharged.   If the solicitor has done work for the client, he is entitled to be paid for it.


----------



## John joe

MOB said:


> "But when I contacted the Law Society he addmitted to stealing my money from me."
> 
> Sorry to be mean about this, but I simply don't believe this. My gut instinct is that:.


 
His reply to the Law Society was "I regret the error" as stated in my previous post he have been already asked about the double charging before contacting the Law Society
[/quote]
1. The solicitor had money in his client account belonging to the OP and applied some or all of it toward fees and outlays without first getting agreement on the bill. 
[/quote]
No the money had not been in my account until he had requested it under false pretences. He was charging me for court hearing fees twice and has sent out the same bill as I had previously paid two years previous. Talk about a dummy? huh
[/quote]
2. There was a dispute about fees charged. 
[/quote]
yes there was I will pay for something once and not twice for the same thing

[/quote]
3. The OP complained to the Law Society and the solicitor (having been lax in issuing S.68 letter and perhaps also not having been sufficiently up-front on the fees to be charged) took the pragmatic attitude that it was better to refund the fees and write off the whole thing to experience, rather than try to defend the charges. 
[/quote]
How could it be possible dispute something when he was clearly wrong. I had two bills for the same amount and both for court fees but with a date of two year difference between then. You can't argue black is white
[/quote]
If this is what happened, then it certainly falls short of good and acceptable practice, but it also falls well short of theft. If the client had money sitting there with the solicitor, and if it was not intended to be used to fund the costs of the case, it kinda begs the question as to why the money was left with the solicitor at all.
[/quote]
There was no money sitting in my account with the solicitor.
[/quote]
But it would be normal for the solicitor to require that his fees to date be discharged. If the solicitor has done work for the client, he is entitled to be paid for it.[/quote]
As stated in my previous post all outlays and fees where paid to date. 

This solicitor has ****ed me off so much I no longer trust solicitors anymore therefore the reason I will be representing myself in future. Thanks for all replies and and will post back here after the outcome of coming off record in the high court.


----------



## Stifster

I once had a bad pint myself. It was Smithwicks. I haven't had one since but i still drink pints of guinness or carlsberg or whatever.

Representing yourself is a brave move, good luck. If your case has merit you'd be far better off in the hands of a lawyer.


----------



## John joe

Case was heard in the High court yesterday. It turns out the solicitor has to pay the fees!


----------



## Vanilla

John joe said:


> Case was heard in the High court yesterday. It turns out the solicitor has to pay the fees!


 
I'm not psychic but I could have predicted this post, funnily enough.


----------



## dazza21ie

Vanilla said:


> I'm not psychic but I could have predicted this post, funnily enough.


 
What not have a go at the lotto numbers just to be sure!


----------



## Vanilla

dazza21ie said:


> What not have a go at the lotto numbers just to be sure!


 

I might. Let me have your address so I can send you a postcard from the South of France.


----------



## John joe

Vanilla said:


> I'm not psychic but I could have predicted this post, funnily enough.


 
Thing is in my solicitors reply to the Law Society he had asked me to pay these High Court fees.


----------



## John joe

The Judge in the High Court has ruled that my crooked solicitor will have to appear before the High Court in person to hand the file over to myself as he cannot be trusted to just come off record and that I will have to go to his office to collect the file.


----------



## bond-007

Serious accusations there.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

It is serious, but as the solicitor has not been identified, it doesn't matter.

I am closing the thread as it's finished and as John Joe is in breach of the guidelines in relation to bad language.

Brendan


----------

