# Are Solicitors losing influence with their clients



## Dr.Debt (9 Jan 2013)

It crossed my mind today when reading some of the other threads that lots of people seem to be prepared to take on legal tasks on a DIY basis nowadays,rather than referring them to a Solicitor as used to be done of old

For example you hear about people 
1) Doing their own wills
2) Taking out probate
3) Downloading templates of letting agreements
4) Avoiding litigation in the collection of debts
5) Researching legal matters on-line and getting "free answers"
6) Some are even starting to get involved in simple conveyancing
7) Some have taken to defending themselves in Court.

In many cases, I get the feeling that people are willing to take calculated legal risks with more minor matters to avoid legal costs OR to undertake legal tasks where they believe that Solicitors are not adding enough value.

As we all know, The number of property transactions has collapsed in recent years and professional indemnity premia have soared which makes me believe that lots of Solicitors must be under huge pressure to survive.

As a businessman, I come across a lot of Solicitors in my daily chores. A good solicitor with a commercial flair is worth his / her weight in gold.
However this type of Solicitor seems to be the exception rather than the rule and in very short supply. Many solicitors that I have come across in recent years seem to be stuck in a time warp, with limited ability and I often get a feeling that they are adding more cost than value to the tasks on hand.

As an example and not so long ago I came across a case where a landlord was desperately trying to let out a commercial premises. After two years lying vacant and on the market, a tenant was found and the basic terms were agreed. The landlord handed the matter over to his Solicitor and the Solicitor proceeded to "blow the deal". The Solicitor blew the deal by insisting on every sort of indemnity and insurance and onerous condition imaginable "to protect his clients interests" Now the Solicitor was actually doing a good job trying to protect his clients interests from a legal point of view but he failed to understand that there were 15 other premises for letting in the same park and anyone (except him) could see that there was a limit to what he was going to get from the new tenant before the deal would collapse. The deal did collapse and the prospective tenant is now renting the unit,next door. The unit in question still lies vacant today and the Landlord is in extreme financial straits. This is a typical case of what I have experienced with Solicitors in recent times. And to be fair, I can understand that the Solicitor might be trying to cover his rear end, by making sure that all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s crossed and making sure that the client doesn't come back to him later with a negligence claim.Presumably that is a huge part of the problem. The Solicitor may feel he has to take a certain approach even if it doesn't result in the best outcome for the client. It follows from this, rightly or wrongly, and some people are beginning to figure it out, you wont necessarily or always achieve the best outcome by engaging a Solicitor.

So whats my point ? My point is that Solicitors will have to add much more value to their clients overall interests in the future if they expect to earn a fee. The modern client is clearly much more demanding, much more educated and has easy access to legal resources on the internet. My feeling is that people have "wised up" and will only pay Solicitors now where real value is being added.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> My point is that Solicitors will have to add much more value to their clients overall interests in the future if they expect to earn a fee. The modern client is clearly much more demanding, much more educated and has easy access to legal resources on the internet.



Much of the problem is that most solicitors do act in their clients best interests. There is a major failing in clients giving simple instructions. In the case you have mentioned the client should have told the legals to ease off rather than blaming the solicitor. It would not have been that difficult to place his instructions in writing.

The friend might be in Dire straits but the solicitor probably is as well. This downturn has not singled out any sector from this calamity. This is why the Irish nation will take so long to return to domestic growth.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Thanks Mercman.

The client in this particular example is an elderly Gent (71) who just handed the whole file to the Solicitor and would tell you frankly that he "doesn't understand these things" He just wanted the Solicitor to take care of it.
on his behalf. The Solicitor was 100% "empowered". so to speak.


----------



## Time (10 Jan 2013)

A very interesting and thought provoking post. I would agree with you for the most part.
There are certain things where only a solicitor will do, e.g. conveyancing. Also the PRA is very reluctant to deal with lay people which makes using a solicitor a necessity. 

There are also certain areas that solicitors will not touch with a bargepole. Debt cases for example. You will not find a solicitor willing to represent a debtor in a bank debt case for fear they would not get any more work from the banks. A visit to any district court will show you that getting instalment orders for banks is now the staple of the average solicitor with debtors appearing by themselves or with lay advisor's such as myself for support. Many of the people I see do not have the funds to pay a solicitor and the legal aid board will not give funds for such cases. As I said earlier you would be hard pressed to find someone who has no vested interest that is willing to represent you. 

People are doing their own thing these days and I don't blame them. You can find precedent copies of forms online. You can prepare your own summonses easily. The one thing I will say is that the court clerks are very helpful and understanding in dealing with lay litigants. 

There was a time people would be afraid of a solicitors letter. Not anymore. Solicitors don't instil the fear they once had. I knows a fellow that lights his fire with solicitors letters. They not just losing influence with clients they are losing influence in general.


----------



## itsallwrong (10 Jan 2013)

The public for the most part have unprecedented access to information and methods of how to do things.
Agree with you on a good solicitor is worth their weight in gold - but that can be said about most professions.
As Time said 'court clerks are very helpful and understanding in dealing with lay litigants'. 
A good chunk of solicitor work is easier than it is made out to be.

People are willing to learn, now more so than ever with money being so tight.
They also became very fond of charging a percentage of the value of the work as opposed to the work involved.
And let's be honest here. They got paid a lot of money for doing very little (for certain things).
That has changed for sure!
Who can blame people for self educating themselves and dealing with it?
But it is very much a young persons game. Not many elderly folks are that savvy in researching legal things.
It would be fair to say that there are a few things in the world that a solicitor is not 100% necessary for.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> the whole file to the Solicitor and would tell you frankly that he "doesn't understand these things" He just wanted the Solicitor to take care of it.



Without my being rude, why did he purchase the property in the first instance ?
He might be best to leave his property matters to a decent estate agent who will do the negotiations with any perspective tenants and with solicitors as well.

Hope this isn't a case of 'Penny Wise, Pound foolish'


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Mercman,Thats an interesting point of view. You think that a person who knows nothing about law shouldnt buy property ?? I think the landlord's view would be "that's why I engage a Solicitor" By the way he had a top firm of Estate Agents on the job as well. I heard about this case from the landlord's son. I understand that when the next tenant comes along, the son will handle it himself and there will be no Solicitor. I dont know if thats right or wrong but that is the situation.


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> 1) Doing their own wills
> 2) Taking out probate
> 3) Downloading templates of letting agreements
> 4) Avoiding litigation in the collection of debts
> ...


 
I don't think anyone should do their own will no matter how simple. 

Probate is a different matter. But that too depends. Personally I'd prefer not to do it, would depend on the cost versus my time. 

In relation to letting agreements, as a landlord myself I've never seen any point in them. It might be different for commercial leases, but if I were involved in that area no doubt I'd have researched it and would know exactly what to do if I were the owner of a commercial premises and it would be me instructing my solicitor, with his advice on what was needed. From the example you gave in a distressed rental market the landlord should have been on the ball and willing to jump hoops to get the tenant, with no lease if necessary.

The problem with debts is not the solicitor, it's that the costs of taking a case are not worthwhile - that's a problem with the court system and requires a change in legislation, something along the lines of the small claims court. There was an excellent poster on here who made it his business to personally learn how to go to court and take on debtors. That's what I would too if I were a businessman who needed to recoup monies. And too often people can blame their solicitor if they don't succeed because people fail to understand that you can win in court but still not get paid. That's not the solicitors fault. 

Researching legal matters on line is all very well and good, and you can learn a lot, but for anything a bit tricky you cannot beat competent and good legal advice. In all of life this holds true and in my case I've an excellent solicitor and accountant who have never but given me proper professional advice. But you have to be willing to pay for it and no you don't need the big law firms in Dublin or the big 4 accountancy firms - I think they are to be avoided at all costs unless you are Sean Quinn/Paddy McKillen/Sean Dunne etc. And even then you as a client can be your own worst enemy (Sean Quinn and the Juries out on McKillen).

Conveyancing, this cannot be done by oneself if there is a mortgage as far as I know. And who would want to risk it going wrong. My goodness this is a very serious matter and involves a great deal of money. 

Defending oneself in court. Look at Brian O' Donnell, one of the top top Irish solicitors and his story is a case study in the old saying, a solicitor who represents himself has a fool for a client (I haven't got the words exactly right on that, but you get the gist). It's ok to defend onself for say TV licence, but I think paying a solicitor a couple of hundred for a traffic office is money well spent. And for those who have no money, they are very brave souls who have to go into court and I admire them greatly. Court is to be avoided if at all possible. And there is something wrong when middle class people cannot seek to vindicate their rights because of costs. But we have a closed shop system and that too is a matter for Mr. Alan Shatter, and the next minister and the next......

The above is not a justification of solicitors by the way because I've plenty of very bad things to say about a certain number of them and I think the self regulation and cover ups has to change, for the good of the professional solicitors and society in general. Same with a lot of professionals really.


----------



## fender (10 Jan 2013)

I think Solicitors have overcharged for years and are being dragged screaming into reality. Two years ago I got a quote for Probate from a solicitor for an estate valued at 650k. I was quoted 18k inc vat! ( I asked for his best price and he immediately dropped price to 9.5k including vat which which alarmed me.

I proceeded to carry out probate myself, which was quiet easy for approx 1k. I try everything myself now if possible.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

So the solicitor is now in a position of 'Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't'. There is no point in attributing blame to the legal team alone. Where was the top brass of Estate Agents whilst this was going on ?? And I never said that persons purchasing property shouldn't buy property. However that is exactly what happened in this country. The free and easy road to credit has left many people in the hands of the vultures (the Banks). And we all know what they have done to the vulnerable !!


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

fender said:


> I think Solicitors have overcharged for years and are being dragged screaming into reality. Two years ago I got a quote for Probate from a solicitor for an estate valued at 650k. I was quoted 18k inc vat! ( I asked for his best price and he immediately dropped price to 9.5k including vat which which alarmed me.
> 
> I proceeded to carry out probate myself, which was quiet easy for approx 1k. I try everything myself now if possible.


 
Unbeliveable form 18K to 9.5K. Of course all the solicitor saw was the 650K and based his price on that. So his calculation was about 3% and then reduced it to about 1.5%.  Of course I assume that probates are stilll the big money spinners that's why wills are so cheap to make.  

Well done you fender on your outcome.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

fender said:


> I think Solicitors have overcharged for years



Eh Wakey Wakey. They still are. The only reason why the big firms choose corporate work is they are able to charge massive money for the work they do.

As a form of reminder has anyone tried to change solicitors ?? A painful exercise but for Private Clients 'He Who dares....... Wins'


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

mercman said:


> Eh Wakey Wakey. '


 
I think we can safely say Fender was wide awake and as a result has a lot more money in his pocket.


----------



## Importer (10 Jan 2013)

I think the main problem is that the world has changed and the legal profession has remained the same.

With all the information available, most clients have a much better understanding of what Solicitors actually do. The mystique is gone and younger people are much better informed.

I think most people would be happy to pay top bucks to a Solicitor who is working on complex and demanding legal tasks in banking, insurance, government etc, however they are no longer willing to pay over the odds for straight forward mundane matters like those listed above.

I think we need to take the queue from places like Canada and the USA who have well developed paralegal frameworks in place. Paralegals take care of property transactions,wills, probates and are allowed to take cases to the lower courts. They charge a much lower fee. Lawyers get involved in complex legal matters and are paid on a much higher scale.

Our problem in this country is that we have a lot of Solicitors charging top money for the lower level work. People are not buying it anymore. Surely Solicitors did not spend five or six years of legal training to assist clients with minor motor traffic offences or speeding fines or installment orders which appears to be what a lot of small practice Solicitors are occupying themselves with, in this country.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

Importer said:


> I think the main problem is that the world has changed and the legal profession has remained the same..



100% correct. 

But in the case of this thread, the OP is implying that the solicitors have acted on there own and scuppered the deal. From dealing with the biggest and smallest of law firms, I have to see any of them go off on a tangent and do their own thing.

In fact I know of many cases where the solicitors have not done enough, but never too much.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

How is this an 'askaboutlaw' thread? I would think it should be in Letting off Steam, where it belongs. 

The title could easily be changed to 'Are professionals losing influence with their clients?'

A little googling will bring you information or misinformation on any number of issues- tax, law, planning, accounting, medical matters etc etc. Every one of these professions faces the same issue- clients who do a little googling or talk to the man on the next barstool and think they know as much about something as their adviser- and in every one of these professions there are good and bad people. The vast majority of clients in solicitors offices are given good advice and good service otherwise the business would simply fold. But you never hear about the happy clients, just the disgruntled ones.

As for not changing- the law changes constantly and if anyone thinks the solicitors profession has not changed over the last number of decades, they are mistaken.

As for the OP's example- a feeling of deja vu came over me when I read it- I believe it has been posted as an example before on AAM. Beyond the people actually involved, no one really knows the truth of that situation but it shows the solicitor was not in a race to the bottom as has been the situation too many times in the property bubble- just because other landlords conceded indemnities/insurance in order to grab a tenant doesnt mean they were right to do so.


----------



## Importer (10 Jan 2013)

Vanilla, This does not appear to be a a letting off steam thread to me. Its a genuine question about how well 
Solicitors are serving their clients.

Regarding your comment "- just because other landlords conceded indemnities/insurance in order to grab a tenant doesnt mean they were right to do so"

I think I would prefer a lease that was less than ideal and had rent coming in over one that was "right" but couldnt attract a tenant. But I think thats one of the main points of this thread and I think its interesting that you have made that same point again yourself.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

Importer said:


> I think I would prefer a lease that was less than ideal and had rent coming in over one that was "right" but couldnt attract a tenant. But I think thats one of the main points of this thread and I think its interesting that you have made that point again yourself.


 
So you would prefer to be exposed to claims in relation to the premises even though they should be the responsibility of the tenant? You would prefer that the tenant was not forced to take out insurance in relation to the premises?

The reality is of course that had the solicitor allowed that, and had his client been exposed to a large compensation claim, that the solicitor would be sued for professional negligence where the client is considered vulnerable and had handed over responsibility to the solicitor. In fact the example cited is the antithesis of the thread title- in that example, the client took the solicitors advice because at the end of the day, the client instructs, the solicitor merely advises.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Im not sure we should get too bogged down with the one example.........

As I understand it the main problem was not Insurance which is a perfectly acceptable request in this type of lease. There were other indemnities sought, Personal Guarantees, Trade References, Bank References, Previous landlord references. My contact believed that the Solicitor had plenty of time on his hands and was making a "complete breakfast" out of it.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

Personal guarantee- the tenant must have been a company. No personal guarantee, tenant can walk away scot free from all debts and hide behind the corporate veil.

References- who wouldn't want references? Why wouldn't you supply them?

Not exactly onerous. But yeah, lets not get bogged down with specific examples. Lets generalise.


----------



## Time (10 Jan 2013)

I think the issue is being dodged here.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

In fairness, these were probably the sort of questions that the other Solicitor asked BEFORE the deal collapsed on him.

Like it or not, Landlords are no longer in a strong position when it comes to
letting a property. They once were but they are no longer. Tenants are cock of the walk and they know it. They are not going to put themselves out.They dont have to. They will just go next door.

If I was that landlord, I would need to know that I have a Solicitor on board that will help me get the deal across the line. Maybe instead of looking for five references, he might have settled for a bank reference and the phone number of the previous landlord. A solicitor that digs his or her heels in, in pursuit of perfection, but loses the deal, is in my oppinion "brilliant" but worthless.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> Maybe instead of looking for five references, he might have settled for a bank reference and the phone number of the previous landlord. A solicitor that digs his or her heels in, in pursuit of perfection, but loses the deal, is in my oppinion "brilliant" but worthless.


 
You seem to know the fine details of the case. The more you post, the more you divulge.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Why ?


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> . Maybe instead of looking for five references, he might have settled for a bank reference and the phone number of the previous landlord. A solicitor that digs his or her heels in, in pursuit of perfection, but loses the deal, is in my oppinion "brilliant" but worthless.


 
But surely it's the landlord that requested 5 references and that would be nigh on impossible from anybody. The landlord should have realised that the tenant would walk if he put unreasonable demands on the tenant in today's market.

What exactly was the tenant asked for? If it took two years to get this tenant there and there 15 other lots vacant than one have to be exceedingly flexible as in little or no conditions and a rent lower than all others


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Bronte, It wasnt the landlord who requested all the references. It was the landlord's Solicitor....and otherwise I agree fully with your post


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> Bronte, It wasnt the landlord who requested all the references. It was the landlord's Solicitor....and otherwise I agree fully with your post


 
But the landlord if he knew 5 references would make the tenant walk should have instructed his solicitor to ask for no references. There may be certain basics one needs for a commercial tenancy but 5 references are not necessary.

And I don't get whether you think the solicitor was acting properly or not. Seems to me he was acting on his clients instructions. I await the full details.  Because quite clearly you used this story as an example of a landlord losing a client because of his solicitor.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Amen brother.


----------



## Bronte (10 Jan 2013)

That's not a reply, and you started this thread so I think you should back up your original post.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

That's the central issue in the example given- solicitors give advice, clients must make the commercial decision.


----------



## Dr.Debt (10 Jan 2013)

Bronte, I think most of your questions are answered earlier up in the thread if you go back through it.

The landlord is an elderly man who wouldnt be at all familiar with legal  matters.Hhe found a tenant for his premises and briefed his Solicitor  to take care of drafting the lease and getting it sorted out. To my  understanding that was the extent of the brief.

Regarding your comment - "And I don't get whether you think the  solicitor was acting properly or not" I never said that I thought the  Solicitor was acting properly or otherwise. I pointed out in my first  post that I could understand why a Solicitor would want to have all the  "i"s and "t"s crossed to safeguard himself from future negligence  claims. The point I have been trying to tease out through this thread is  as follows :
If it is the case that the Solicitor could not have acted any other way  without leaving himself open to negligence suits and yet he didnt manage  to get the desired outcome, then maybe the landlord would have had a  better outcome by not employing a Solicitor at all. Or in other words  "Are Solicitors really meeting the needs of their clients" which is the  point we started from.

My view is that we need Solicitors that can balance the legal side with  the practical side to achieve an overall result for the client and I  believe that it was achievable in this case but wasn't. As I said this  is just an example. I am interested in the wider view and other  contributors experiences and examples.


----------



## mercman (10 Jan 2013)

I never thought I'd take this side of the legal profession, but let's imagine if the property was let and the tenant then walked. The OP would be ranting about the poor job the solicitor did. From what I have read I'd say they did an adequate job. The landlord is an older man. Fair enough, but nobody was asking him to go out and move the building three feet to the left. It wasn't onerous to think about the matters identified.

References etc. are standard practice for a solicitor to request, and if they didn't there would be a heap of posters suggesting to refer the case to the Law Society.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Jan 2013)

Dr.Debt said:


> The landlord is an elderly man who wouldnt be at all familiar with legal  matters.He found a tenant for his premises and briefed his Solicitor  to take care of drafting the lease and getting it sorted out. To my  understanding that was the extent of the brief.
> 
> .



Hi Dr Debt

Your original post is excellent and thought provoking, but the example you gave is not great. 

In any transaction I have been involved in, I have driven the transaction and the solicitor has advised.  There was a problem with a house I bought and the solicitor brought it to my attention and told me the consequences of going ahead. I accepted the risk. 

The landlord and tenant in your case should have driven the transaction. I have seen cases where two solicitors were blocking a deal being done and the clients just told them to do x, y and z. That is what should have happened in your case. 

I would not issue a commercial lease without using a solicitor. I would not engage in litigation without using a solicitor. I would not buy or sell a house without a solicitor. But I would try to do some of the following myself.

1) Doing their own wills - draft it myself and get a solicitor to review it
2) Taking out probate - have done this no problem.
3) Downloading templates of letting agreements
4) Avoiding litigation in the collection of debts - This is the fault of the courts system. I have had great work and terrible work by the exact same solicitor on different cases. 
5) Researching legal matters on-line and getting "free answers" -  Always worth doing
6) Some are even starting to get involved in simple conveyancing - Can you do this in Ireland? 
7) Some have taken to defending themselves in Court - what sort of cases? 

I have recently advised a friend in an employment law case not to use a solicitor.  The final outcome was compensation of €40k , €30k of which went in legal fees. He was a senior guy who could have done much better by himself. 

In another case, where a friend took my advice and did not use a solicitor, he got no response at all from his employer. I then advised him to use a solicitor and he got an immediate response. 

I have also advised another person to seek to resolve an issue without litigation.  Solicitors got involved. They involved barristers and a simple enough issue went rapidly out of control. 

I would do my very best to avoid solicitors in the following cases: 
Employment law - the EAT is supposed to be a lawyer free zone
Personal Injuries - use injuriesboard.ie 
Complaints about financial services - use the FSO
Small claims - use the small claims court 

Debt collection is very difficult.  It is slow and expensive and time consuming. And at the end of the day, will getting a judgement help? It's often best just to forget about it.  Many solicitors won't touch it. Some specialise in it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Jan 2013)

The same principles apply to accountants as well. 

It is hard to find a good accountant in practice. 

You can find someone who is good initially and then loses interest. 

You can do a lot of the stuff yourself, bookkeeping, payroll, tax etc. 

You can improve your chances of doing it by researching online. 

But there are some things you can't do yourself, and you should use a practising accountant e.g. specialist tax planning; preparing statutory accounts for a limited company.


----------



## Time (10 Jan 2013)

> preparing statutory accounts for a limited company.


If you have the knowledge there is no legal need to use an accountant. In actual fact they can be very basic accounts with precedent copies available for free.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Jan 2013)

Hi Time

I would think that very few people could prepare a set of accounts, even a simple set of accounts, without some training as an accountant.  But maybe accounting packages are advanced enough these days to allow this.

Brendan


----------



## McCrack (10 Jan 2013)

Sorry now I have to come in here, my expertise is personal injury work and injured people should not (purely in their own interests) apply themselves to the Injuries Board. In fact 90% of claimants thankfully do instruct a solicitor.

The Injuries Board is a pawn of the insurance industry and if you do not wish to get shafted by them instruct a solicitor to handle it on your behalf.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Jan 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But I would try to do some of the following myself.
> 
> 1) Doing their own wills - draft it myself and get a solicitor to review it
> 2) Taking out probate - have done this no problem.
> ...


 
1. I wouldn't review a will drafted by a client. In general solicitors charge a very small fee for making a will. In my opinion, a client would expect a solicitor to charge even less or nothing to review a will they had drafted. That would be a waste of my time, expertise and indeed open me up to a negligence action far too easily. A will, properly drafted, involves a detailed consultation with client about their relationships, relatives, assets and expectations. 

2.I've seen an increase on this forum of people stating that they have taken out a personal probate application. It may well be that they have done their research and know enough to deal with it competently. But I wonder if everyone who takes out probate knows the liability they have personally taken on and are open to for years after the grant issues. I wonder if everyone knows about obligations to serve certain notices,ensuring statutory obligations are met, identifying the beneficiaries, publish creditors notices, obtain all the relevant clearances, insure the assets, ensure that revenue obligations are met in relation to income during the adminstration period, the tax issues that derive from the valuation date and indeed, the very fundamental yet basic difference between valuation date, date of death, date of grant, and how to protect themselves from potential future actions etc. Because if everyone knew just how open they are leaving themselves by doing it improperly...

3. Templates are, in general, a good tool, but need to be tailored. Grand, if you know the provisions of the relevant acts and obligations.

4. Debt collection- like a great deal of litigation, one of the first discussions I have with any client in any form of litigation is in relation to costs and possible outcome. 

5. Googling legal research...we all google for information, all the time. But there is a great deal of misinformation out there too, information in relation to other jurisdictions which is simply not relevant and confusing information. I wouldnt expect anyone not to do it, I google things myself to get a general idea of something I don't know anything about, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt and make sure you don't get led down the wrong path too.

6. Conveyancing is hard. It's actually the one type of legal work that pushes professional indemnity insurance premiums sky high because it generates most negligence claims. Anyone who really knows anything about conveyancing will know how hard it is. Title is not straightforward. To be good at conveyancing you have to have a huge amount of experience.

7.Cases where they are not a mark and have no money, mainly and where they don't have a good case to make so there is no possibility of having costs awarded against the other party. Bank repossession actions and the like.


----------



## Bronte (11 Jan 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have recently advised a friend in an employment law case not to use a solicitor. The final outcome was compensation of €40k , €30k of which went in legal fees. He was a senior guy who could have done much better by himself.
> 
> In another case, where a friend took my advice and did not use a solicitor, he got no response at all from his employer. I then advised him to use a solicitor and he got an immediate response.
> 
> .


 
One is contradicting the other. Because without the solicitor the second guy was getting nowhere. 

And getting compensation of 40K have having to pay 30K is mind boggling. Would he have gotton 40K if he did his own arguing or would he have still only received 10K. I don't have the answer but this is part of the problem. If you're not used to dealing with the EAT you could lose out big time if you go it alone.

And you hit the nail on the head there in relation to  Dr. Debts thread, his 'bad' example is not standing up to scrutiny.  And seems to be another case of bashing a professional because a deal was lost.  Looks to me like the solicitor was doing an excellent job.


----------



## Bronte (11 Jan 2013)

Vanilla said:


> 1. I wouldn't review a will drafted by a client. In general solicitors charge a very small fee for making a will.
> 
> 2.. But I wonder if everyone who takes out probate knows the liability they have personally taken on and are open to for years after the grant issues.
> 
> ...


 
I completely agree with you on wills. BB's example of him drafting a will and then having it reviewed must be exceedingly rare. And I assume his solicitor was willing to do it for him as he's a good client etc - he may clarify if he wishes. 

A will only costs a couple of hundred (it used to be 100 pounds before I left Ireland) and is the cheapest legal service that exists, so cheap that it's practically free so it is the one area that people should most definitely use a solicitor. Particularly as it's so important. Some credit unions used to have a scheme for getting wills done cheaply, maybe this still exists. 

In relation to probate, its very costly, and there are horror stories about costs on this always and often on AAM (even on this thread). This is due to the fact that solicitor's tend to charge for it based on the estate value rather than the work involved. A simple estate where there is say one house worth 3 million versus a simple estate where there is one house worth 100K should cost the same but they never do. But I'd agree with you that it would be better to hire a professional if the estate is in any way complicated. Many people do seem to on AAM have managed it successfully so I assume it must be fairly simple estates and also people who are very competent at following paper trails. 

In relation to conveyancing, can an ordinary person do their own conveyance? In any case as you pointed out this can be very complex, so it's very risky. One thing I've never understood is why is it so complex and my conclusion is that is is deliberately so in order to keep it the bread and butter of the legal professionals. In addition is is an extremely stressful transaction for everybody. It never fails to amaze me why the Law Society hasn't done more to modernise. Maybe the new land registry (wrong name -sorry) will make everything more smooth and transparent.  I don't think the fees I've paid have been anything but reasonable.  But solicitors, not yourself obviously, should be clear on the costs involved.  The quote should be including VAT and making it abundently clear about registrations fees etc and also that other annoying thing, postage/miscellanous (cannot remember that one either)etc.  

(As an aside, I have a relation whose new registration is a complete mess with the requirements being demanded by said new land registry, luckily it's not the purchaser who will have to pay for the work of the solicitor as they were at fault in not registering on time with the old land registry and there is now a problem with boundries and two titles etc)


----------



## Importer (11 Jan 2013)

As I said earlier, most of the tasks mentioned are "paralegal" tasks.
They are tasks that can easily be handled by lower level, lower qualified people for a much lower fee, as is done in USA / Canada.

I think in the future we will see a lot more "paralegals" a lot less Solicitors and an opening up of the closed shop currently cloaking the legal industry.

Following the 2009 land conveyancing act, we are moving towards a much more simplified, electronic conveyancing process which hopefully will take much of the mystique out of conveyancing and an ability to close house sales within a few days as is done in many other European countries already.

Lots of our graduates are leaving Universities nowadays with good masters degrees in all disciplines . A lot of these people are armed with excellent research skills and there is no doubt that these people will further develop DIY law for the less complicated / less risky tasks into the future.

I think its correct to say that Solicitors will need to work much harder in meeting their clients needs and for a much lower price. Then again thats follows a readily identifiable trend across many professions, not just Law


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jan 2013)

> "I  have recently advised a friend in an employment law case not to use a  solicitor. The final outcome was compensation of €40k , €30k of which  went in legal fees. He was a senior guy who could have done much better  by himself.
> 
> In another case, where a friend took my advice and did not use a  solicitor, he got no response at all from his employer. I then advised  him to use a solicitor and he got an immediate response. "
> 
> . 			 		 	 	 One is contradicting the other. Because without the solicitor the second guy was getting nowhere.



Hi Bronte

Maybe my point wasn't clear. 

I think that people should attempt to resolve these issues and even go to the EAT without using a solicitor. 

But, it's not a hard rule.  When my friend was getting nowhere, we changed tack and got a solicitor involved.  It was a shocking waste of resources. While he got a good settlement, I think that the former employer paid as much in legal fees as he did in compensation.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Jan 2013)

Bronte said:


> One thing I've never understood is why is it so complex and my conclusion is that is is deliberately so in order to keep it the bread and butter of the legal professionals.


 
The reason that conveyancing is so complex is partially due to the two types of title, the way planning matters affect 'good' title and also due to the system we have whereby charges or burdens run with property. None of these can be attributed to practitioners. There is a distinction to be made between the lawmakers and practitioners. In fact the law reform commission, which is made up of many practitioners, have recommended much more sweeping changes than have actually come about.

In relation to fees- I know of nobody charging a percentage fee anymore in relation to probates- it's based on the work to be done. And it is a free market, anyone can shop around for quotes. I also would have to point out that solicitors are bound to give a clear written estimate of costs at the earliest possible time on their file and in most instances, this is immediately after taking instructions. Yes, you will hear of complaints where people weren't given an estimate or it wasn't clear but these are the exception. In the nature of things, the clients who are satisfied with their service don't need to make that public.



Importer said:


> Following the 2009 land conveyancing act, we are moving towards a much more simplified, electronic conveyancing process which hopefully will take much of the mystique out of conveyancing and an ability to close house sales within a few days as is done in many other European countries already.


 
In reality, the 2009 act resolved a few obscure title hangovers from the last few centuries that actually affected a tiny amount of titles. What was recommended by the Law Reform commission and what happened in the act are two different things.

It has done little or nothing to affect the vast majority of title in Ireland.

In fact some of the provisions of the act have meant more people need to change aspects of their title in order comply with updated practice directions arising from the act, particularly in relation to rights of ways. 

It's all very well reading the blurb about the act or even reading the act itself but unless you are working in the area you have no idea of the reality.


----------



## Importer (11 Jan 2013)

Bought a property in Finland a number of years back.

All the title information is held electronically and the conveyancing was all done in an hour after filling out a few screens on the computer. 

Its only Solicitors in this country who insist that it must be complicated.

I do agree that It's complicated in this country to the extent of all the legacy easements and rights of ways that are still not registered with the PRA. The recent digitization is also throwing up a lot of problems.The 2009 act was intended to deal with these problems and pave the way for econveyancing.It didnt do a very good job.

I'm pretty sure that the conveyancing process could be greatly simplified and electronified if it was properly tackled and resourced by the legal profession. Unfortunately by doing that we would also be taking away the "Solicitor's lunch". Id be surprised if we see any great progress any time soon.

I think that the disorganisation of  our conveyancing process and the way it interfaces with the planning authorities is backward and makes us a laughing stock of Europe.

As for Vanillas comment that only Solicitors can really understand these things. I have no comment about that at all.


----------



## Time (11 Jan 2013)

A big part of the problem with conveyancing is that the PRAI are very awkward to deal with as a lay person. They will invariably tell you to use a solicitor. It is almost as if it is a pre-programmed response they have as their default position is dealing with solicitors. 

Also you get certain public bodies that say "Oh we will only accept such a request from a solicitor." I have successfully complained to the Data Protection Commissioner and the Ombudsman where this line has been trotted out in the past.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2013)

Vanilla said:


> at the end of the day, the client instructs, the solicitor merely advises.


That's the crux of it. If the solicitor is no good then use a different one but don't blame them if you take your eye off the ball and a deal falls apart. If the solicitor is employed as an agent to manage the deal that’s one thing but if they are employed with only their legal hat on then that’s all they should do.

There are good and bad solicitors just as there are bad “everyone else’s”. Caveat Emptor still applies when you are buying services as well as goods.
There’s so much competition in the market now that if a solicitor is busy it’s because they are offering good value for money.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Jan 2013)

Importer said:


> Its only Solicitors in this country who insist that it must be complicated.
> 
> 
> As for Vanillas comment that only Solicitors can really understand these things. I have no comment about that at all.


 
First of all, how do solicitors insist it must be complicated? It is what it is- solicitors have not made it that way, nor do we have the power to change it. As I pointed out, the Law Reform commission made recommendations that the government did not implement. The Law Society has made recommendations about e-conveyancing that- wait for it- have not been implemented. It's ridiculous to blame solicitors for the legal system that we have. 

Secondly I think you'll find I did not say only solicitors can really understand these things- but that sounds much better as a soundbite. Read the post.


----------



## Importer (11 Jan 2013)

Yes "it is what it is" but why on earth are Solicitors so willing to accept the Status Quo. Surely if radical reform is needed in the conveyancing area and the legal profession is intent on making the necessary changes to bring it into line with other jurisdictions, then I would be very confident that its possible to achieve such a thing in a reasonable time frame. Its a bit pathetic to hear from you that the Law Society has failed to do X and the Law Reform Commission has failed to do Y so therefore the body of Solicitors is rendered helpless !! Surely the Solicitors have a voice and an input into the framework that they are working in.

Somewhere else in this thread it was mentioned that solicitors are slow to change and that charge was defended vigorously. Im afraid that charge is absolutely true.

The whole legal profession will have to get this sorted out. Solicitors for Buyers, Solicitors for Vendors and more recently separate Solicitors for banks to make sure that the other Solicitors are doing their jobs properly !!
Then letters back and forth about Johnny having a right of way to carry water to a well over another mans land. Im sorry this is just ludicrous and backward.

So yes the 1st step is saying - "It is what it is"
The 2nd step is doing something about it. When are we going to get to the 2nd step ?


----------



## Time (11 Jan 2013)

Turkeys will not vote for Christmas.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Jan 2013)

I did not say the Law society or the law reform commission failed to do anything- this is something they cannot change- the only thing that can change our system is legislation. 

Legislative change is in your hands and in the hands of every voter in this country. It has nothing to do with individual solicitors. It is the government which makes law. You vote for the government. We live in a democracy. Which part of that do you not understand?


----------



## Importer (11 Jan 2013)

Legal Bills are usually introduced to the house by the Minister for Justice

The content of the bills is usually developed by the Minister and his Department following consultation with the various interest groups and following lobying from the relevant law commissions, representative associations and so forth.

Im sure that Solicitors would be better placed than most through their representative body to loby the Minister to introduce necessary legislation for their profession. Solicitors are the ones who know exactly where the problems are and are in the best position to propose the necessary solutions. I still cant get it why you think, this is not the case.
Solicitors are not as helpless or toothless as you would like us to believe and in my view are a critical part in the progression of any new legislation in this area.

The democracy bit ONLY comes in at the end of the process (not the beginning). The elected representatives will vote for the bill when it comes before the house(s) This is after all the heavy lifting has been done.

Same question to you - Which part of that do you not understand


----------



## j26 (12 Jan 2013)

Time said:


> A big part of the problem with conveyancing is that the PRAI are very awkward to deal with as a lay person. They will invariably tell you to use a solicitor. It is almost as if it is a pre-programmed response they have as their default position is dealing with solicitors.



If you get that response it's probably because you're looking for advice on how to do a particular case.  The reason for the PRAI is as a registration authority, not as a source of free legal advice.  
There's also the possibility that you're looking for advice on how to defeat someone elses rights, for example adverse possession, or cancelling a judgment mortgage.  The PRAI is bound to be neutral - to be otherwise would leave it open to be in sued for bias - so will obviously be very reluctant to help on these other than directing you to the correct forms and Practice Directions.
Also consider that conveyancing involves far more than just title.  PRAI staff may well be aware of that fact.

Notwithstanding that, in the main, the PRAI tries to be as helpful as it can.


----------

