# solicitor looking for unpaid fees 6 years after house sale



## karenkarenk (27 Aug 2008)

hi,we bought a house over 6 yrs ago from my mother( was my grandparents housre). we have rented it since and pick up post every now and then---never anything really there for us.anyhow our solicitor who did that sale for us has just comntacted us through my parents saying they have unpaid solicitors fees we need to pay. they say they tried contact us at an apartment we lived in (in another town) at they time of the sale. we never received a bill from them nor had we any knowledge of owing them futrther money. is it legal for them to do this at this point? our bill is still in irish punts?? please advise if you haver any knowledge of something like this, thank you


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

If it is over 6 years since the solicitor last contacted you, the matter is statute barred and you cannot be sued to recover it.


----------



## karenkarenk (27 Aug 2008)

hi thanks for that, they say they did try contact throufgh an old phone no. from our apartment and that they billed us through the post to the house we bought through them. we absolutely didnt receive any contact. but cant really prove that, im dunno ?  does the bill still stand so?


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

It don't matter if they tried to contact you via carrier pigeon, message in a bottle etc. So long as you did not acknowledge the bill in the last 6 years the matter is statute barred. It would be up to the solicitor to prove that you acknowledged the bill.


----------



## karenkarenk (27 Aug 2008)

thats funny!! and good news. thank you for that.


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2008)

Can I ask - did you pay for the work? Did you expect to pay? Did you pay anything? Do you think you should pay anything ? 

And better just check your dates as to when the sale closed - if the actual 6 years is not quite up, and if you do owe them money, look forward to a Civil Summons and a day out in Court.   

mf


----------



## Welfarite (27 Aug 2008)

Like MF1, I'm a bit puzzled by the tone of your post. It's as if the solicitor is out of order in asking for money that is legitimately due. 

As you have now found out that it "slipped your mind" for 6 years about owing this money, the bill should be paid immediately, with an apology for not settling it before now.


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

It is not legitimately due if the matter is statute barred.


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Aug 2008)

bond-007 said:


> It is not legitimately due if the matter is statute barred.



That's quite a big "if".

I would take the view that if the OP has received a service, they should pay for it, regardless of whether or not it is statute barred. What goes around comes around.


----------



## Askar (27 Aug 2008)

Even if you did acknowledge it, it is probably still statute barred - per Section 11 Statute of Limitations. Solicitor has 6 years from date of cause of action to issue proceedings. If you have only received a demand within that period it is not sufficient.


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Aug 2008)

karenkarenk, please read the . This is not a key post, and it doesn't belong in Banking, Borrowing, Budgeting and Credit Cards, either.
Title edited and thread moved to *Askaboutlaw*.


----------



## Askar (27 Aug 2008)

Meant to add: If Solicitor did a good/satisfactory job for you might consider whether you feel you have a moral obligation to pay especially as the real cost of the bill has significantly declined over that period (due to inflation).


----------



## Towger (27 Aug 2008)

What I find interesting, is that this is not the first question on AAM in the last month or so, of someone suddenly getting a letter from their solicitor looking for money, going back years. Are these solicitors sitting around with nothing to do, so have started to trawl through their accounts insuring everything balances, or more lightly are they being audited, due to a number of recent high profile cases and this has thrown out these discrepancies in their accounts.


----------



## jhegarty (27 Aug 2008)

Towger said:


> What I find interesting, is that this is not the first question on AAM in the last month or so, of someone suddenly getting a letter from their solicitor looking for money, going back years. Are these solicitors sitting around with nothing to do, so have started to trawl through their accounts insuring everything balances, or more lightly are they being audited, due to a number of recent high profile cases and this has thrown out these discrepancies in their accounts.




the previous post was about stamp duty paid by a solicitor , and not at the 6 years yet... so sightly different cases...


----------



## Kate10 (27 Aug 2008)

Bond said "It is not legitimately due if the matter is statute barred."

This is complete BS.  Obviously the solicitor carried out work and has not been paid.  If the claim is statute barred it just means that the solicitor is prohibited from seeking payment of the claim through the courts.  It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the claim.

Why on earth the op would think the bill just went away is beyong me.

And j hegarty I've been following up on unpaid bills recently ..because work is much quieter due to downturn in property and now I have time to do it!!

Kate.


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

How would you propose collecting a statute barred debt if the debtor will not play ball?


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2008)

Appealing to their better nature! 

mf


----------



## jhegarty (27 Aug 2008)

mf1 said:


> Can I ask - did you pay for the work? Did you expect to pay? Did you pay anything? Do you think you should pay anything ?
> 
> And better just check your dates as to when the sale closed - if the actual 6 years is not quite up, and if you do owe them money, look forward to a Civil Summons and a day out in Court.
> 
> mf




The op talks about further money ,so we can presume that some money was paid... 

And he says that is was over 6 years ago , so there is no chance of the solicitor having a successful day in court


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2008)

" we never received a bill from them nor had we any knowledge of owing them futrther money."

I would question off hand statements made by first time posters. Very often when you tease it out, the final story is very different to the first account. It may very well be that the final deal was not done until less than 6 years  ago. 

It is not clear to me if OP paid anything at all for the transaction.

I also do not encourage people to walk away from their own debt. I completely accept that 6 years is a long time but I do wonder why OP did not query not having received a bill. 

mf


----------



## ccbkd (27 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> That's quite a big "if".
> 
> I would take the view that if the OP has received a service, they should pay for it, regardless of whether or not it is statute barred. What goes around comes around.


 
Maybe so, but last comment is Karma influenced and down to moral codes - If it was me and it was statute barred I wouldn't pay, But might pay in the next life


----------



## bond-007 (27 Aug 2008)

Morals don't come into it. 

I was in court one day and a solicitor said to a debtor, "You have a moral obligation to pay your debts". The judge interjected "Morals don't come into it, the law does!"


----------



## Caveat (27 Aug 2008)

If I had _genuinely_ overlooked a bill payment, and the debt was now statute barred I certainly wouldn't make any attempt to pay. I wouldn't have any internal moral conflict either. 

There are plenty of legal procedures/regulations which often appear to be not particularly fair to the aggrieved party but we all have to abide by them. 

This is just another one, except in this case the solicitor loses out.

_Edit: crossed with Bond-007_


----------



## efm (27 Aug 2008)

mf1 said:


> Appealing to their better nature!
> 
> mf


 

MF1 - if the OP approached you looking for legal advice in this matter what would you say?  (assuming the facts are as laid out - and I know that you feel they are incomplete)


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> MF1 - if the OP approached you looking for legal advice in this matter what would you say?  (assuming the facts are as laid out - and I know that you feel they are incomplete)



I suspect you already know my answer!

mf


----------



## Carey (27 Aug 2008)

Would that be advice based on morals and/or loyalty to your brothers in the trade?


----------



## Bronte (28 Aug 2008)

What is the reason for debts being statute barred.  To protect people from unexpected bills years later I imagine, for which they now have no budget etc.  If my plumber/roofer/electrician came to me with a bill for a couple of grand for work down more than six years ago how many of you legal eagles would advise me to pay it?  Bills should be sent out promptly in any profession and there is no excuse for not doing so, certainly not a couple of years later nor six years later for which there is absolutely no excuse.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

The OP has not said that they cannot afford to pay the bill. They did say that they moved address at least once in the meantime and the solicitors apparently tried to contact them at their old address. 

Sorry, I find it amazing that people will try to weasel out of paying their debts if a combination of human error and the law allows them to do so. Would the same logic apply to evaded tax debts over 6 years old, where there is no such statute of limitations?


----------



## Caveat (28 Aug 2008)

Whether it is the law being 'abided by' or 'used' is only a matter of perspective IMO. 

Many people can be accused of 'hiding behind the law' or whatever in a multitude of simple or complex legal scenarios - solicitors included.

How many people here have been flabbergasted or infuriated to discover that some 'law' impedes/prevents etc what they see as a totally reasonable course of action or practice?

By the way I never, ever,  pay for something I have not been billed for and I would not expect my customers to do so either.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

Caveat said:


> How many people here have been flabbergasted or infuriated to discover that some 'law' impedes/prevents etc what they see as a totally reasonable course of action or practice?



Do two wrongs make a right?


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Would the same logic apply to evaded tax debts over 6 years old, where there is no such statute of limitations?


 
Do you apply your logic to people who legally avoid paying tax through tax loopholes, created inadvertantly by mistakes or omissions by Revenue and legislators?

The law is the law in this land and thankfully morals or pegoratives don't come into it.  If someone bills me for something six years late I would have no moral problem with telling them to go swing for it!


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> Do you apply your logic to people who legally avoid paying tax through tax loopholes, created inadvertantly by mistakes or omissions by Revenue and legislators?


The Revenue have extensive legal powers and can use a battery of legislation and technical support whenever they wish to challenge taxpayers whom they deem to have improperly avoided tax through the misuse of tax incentives and loopholes. As a taxpayer I don't have any problem with this. 

Its worth noting that Revenue are not restricted by time limits in pursuing such cases.

However I do have a serious problem with the "four year rule" restriction that they use to prevent taxpayers from recovering overpaid tax etc. I consider this to be a legalised form of theft by the State from its own citizens - certainly one aspect of the law where in your own words "morals or pegoratives don't come into it".


----------



## bond-007 (28 Aug 2008)

If you have a problem with the law, you know what to do about it then.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

bond-007 said:


> If you have a problem with the law, you know what to do about it then.



...which presumably is to lobby for its repeal? This is exactly what the accountancy institutes (including the institute of whom I am a member) and consumer groups have done in recent years, without success so far unfortunately.


----------



## bond-007 (28 Aug 2008)

There is always the next election.


----------



## Bronte (28 Aug 2008)

I also agree that the four year revenue rule is unfair.  I think that if they can go back forever then the tax payer should also be allowed go back forever and get interest too.  Why not, lots of people miss out on claiming allowances because they don't know anything about it and revenue do nothing to make the system simple so that it would be virtually impossible to not complete the correct tax return.  This has however nothing to do with a debt being statute barred, to those of you who say the bill should be paid, would you say the same if it was 20 years old, maybe they should pay for the interest on the bill in the meantime too, would that be the moral thing to do?  I have no problem paying any bill I have, but I don't want one to arrive out of the blue six years hence for which I have not budgeted, particularly should it be a substantial bill which in general legal bills are.


----------



## Towger (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous;696122the solicitors apparently tried to contact them at their old address.[/quote said:
			
		

> They did not try too hard.
> They could have contacted their land lord for a forwarding address.
> Their Mother who transferred the house to them.
> Or even tried the new house!
> etc


----------



## dazza21ie (28 Aug 2008)

Towger said:


> They did not try too hard.
> They could have contacted their land lord for a forwarding address.
> Their Mother who transferred the house to them.
> Or even tried the new house!
> etc


 
Solicitors are traditionally very bad at following up unpaid bills. Have been reviewing a number of files and sending reminders for bills that are 3 or 4 years overdue. Have already got a response from one client saying that since the bill is over 3 years old he isn't paying it.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

dazza21ie said:


> Solicitors are traditionally very bad at following up unpaid bills. Have been reviewing a number of files and sending reminders for bills that are 3 or 4 years overdue. Have already got a response from one client saying that since the bill is over 3 years old he isn't paying it.



Of course if they were rational enough to demand payment upfront, they would be accused of all sorts of things like "feathering their own nests" and "ripping off" their clients.


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

If solictors were properly organised in their invoicing, as most other businesses are and need to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



ubiquitous said:


> Of course if they were rational enough to demand payment upfront, they would be accused of all sorts of things like "feathering their own nests" and "ripping off" their clients.


 
I don't understand why you consider it rational for solicitors to demand payment upfront; standard business practice is payment on delivery so why should solicitors be different?


----------



## dazza21ie (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> If solictors were properly organised in their invoicing, as most other businesses are and need to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you consider it rational for solicitors to demand payment upfront; standard business practice is payment on delivery so why should solicitors be different?


 
Legal services are quite different from buying a washing machine. You cannot take the legal services back to the shop if someone refuses to pay you. Once you have provided your service you hope the client will pay. In most cases they do.


----------



## jhegarty (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Of course if they were rational enough to demand payment upfront, they would be accused of all sorts of things like "feathering their own nests" and "ripping off" their clients.




I am sure there is some middle ground between payment upfront , and didn't bother invoicing for 6 years


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

dazza21ie said:


> Legal services are quite different from buying a washing machine. You cannot take the legal services back to the shop if someone refuses to pay you.


 
As is the case for all services no? eg accountants, doctors, consultants, oven cleaners, washing machine repair etc etc.  Solicitors do nothing different to any other service to warrant payment up front.


----------



## dazza21ie (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> As is the case for all services no? eg accountants, doctors, consultants, oven cleaners, washing machine repair etc etc. Solicitors do nothing different to any other service to warrant payment up front.


 
Do doctors not expect to be paid before you leave?


----------



## mf1 (28 Aug 2008)

How would you all feel if OP had posted that she became aware having reviewed her figures that her solicitor had failed to pay her 5K and she had not noticed that at the time. And when she contacted the  solicitor he told her that as more than  6 years had passed that he would not be paying her? Would that not be theft? 

What is the difference in what OP ( now disappeared and amazed at the reaction to erh post!) posted and the above? 

mf


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

dazza21ie said:


> Do doctors not expect to be paid before you leave?


 
Most do but if you walk out the door they can't take back the diagnosis!


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> I don't understand why you consider it rational for solicitors to demand payment upfront; standard business practice is payment on delivery so why should solicitors be different?



This indeed was standard business practice during the boom years. The post-credit crunch era will see changes to this practice as businesses adapt their procedures to counter growing bad trade debt problems within the wider economy.


----------



## dazza21ie (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> Most do but if you walk out the door they can't take back the diagnosis!


 
Or you cant go back to the doctor but i am sure every solicitor in the country has a client that continues to seek legal services from him/her but takes forever to pay outstanding bills.


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

mf1 said:


> How would you all feel if OP had posted that she became aware having reviewed her figures that her solicitor had failed to pay her 5K and she had not noticed that at the time. And when she contacted the solicitor he told her that as more than 6 years had passed that he would not be paying her? Would that not be theft?
> mf


 
Without getting into the legal technicalities of whether you are comparing like with like (ie can a solictor's payment be statute barred as a client doesn't invoice a solicitor) and assuming the same law can be applied, I would say that under Irish Law it was not theft and the OP should have noticed a 5k hole in her accounts, that she was a responsible adult and consider it one of life's lessons.

(And am I not just saying that to support my comments in this thread - I sincerely believe it.)


----------



## efm (28 Aug 2008)

dazza21ie said:


> Or you cant go back to the doctor but i am sure every solicitor in the country has a client that continues to seek legal services from him/her but takes forever to pay outstanding bills.


 
If that is the case then that is a client management problem on the part of "every solicitor in the country" and my advice to all those solicitors is refuse to do any further work until all outstanding amounts are settled.

If any agrieved clients come and post on AAM I will be the first to tell them to pay up if they have been invoiced.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

efm said:


> Without getting into the legal technicalities of whether you are comparing like with like (ie can a solictor's payment be statute barred as a client doesn't invoice a solicitor) and assuming the same law can be applied, I would say that under Irish Law it was not theft and the OP should have noticed a 5k hole in her accounts, that she was a responsible adult and consider it one of life's lessons.



I would expect the Law Society to take the opposite view, if only on ethical grounds. Anything otherwise would be a charter for systematic ripoff of consumers.


----------



## bond-007 (28 Aug 2008)

And ethics have no place in a court of law.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

bond-007 said:


> And ethics have no place in a court of law.



I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ask Michael Neary...


----------



## MOB (28 Aug 2008)

Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, "The lawyer should always get some of his fee in advance from the client. This way the client knows he has a lawyer and the lawyer knows he has a client." 

I don't think Irish clients are well adjusted to the idea of money up front for a solicitor.  I have never sought it, though I would be better than some colleagues at getting interim payments.

Many solicitors are quite poor at billing.  My own view on the matter is that while prompt and efficient billing is obviously far better than erratic and late billing, the crucial trick is not to get better at billing but to get better at picking clients.  If a solicitor makes a habit of terminating dealings with can't\won't pay clients, then over time the quality of the solicitor's client base is constantly improving.    If a client won't pay, it is almost never worth while suing - just stop dealing with them.


----------



## bond-007 (28 Aug 2008)

Exactly, MOB.


----------



## Kate10 (28 Aug 2008)

I agree with MOB that we need to be more discerning in choosing clients.  It can't be a matter of everyone who comes in the door. 

However I am appalled at the attitude of some of the posters to unpaid bills.  Morals have everything to do with it.  If you owe money to someone, and they can't sue you for whatever reason (e.g. they can't afford to pay for the litigation) that doesn't take away your debt.

Also, if everything the op said was true, it's very possible that the solicitor tried to contact her a number of times over the years.

Personally, if I were the solicitor involved I would probably let it go and put it down to experience.  That does not excuse the op's behaviour.


----------



## paddi22 (28 Aug 2008)

it sounds hazy that a bill would appear unannounced after so long. in our line of business, if there are staged payments, then this would be made clear upon agreement to take on the job. If outstanding payments were owed, the client would be made aware of them at the start.

I would never send a bill unannounced to a client if they were unaware of it's arrival. Was the OP aware more payment was owed or had they thought they had settled it?


----------



## bond-007 (28 Aug 2008)

> That does not excuse the op's behaviour.


Nor does it excuse the solicitors behaviour.


----------



## fatmanknows (28 Aug 2008)

I'm confused. If the bill was in punts - surely it was issued some time ago (at least 6 years ago ). Why would a firm issue a bill in punts in 2008. Was not the invoice dated. Sounds like the OP has only discovered the bill. Perhaps a previous tenant had flung it somewhere. Anyway, still think it a bit scammy to avoid paying for a service which you dont deny you've received. No fan or connection with the legal gang BTW... just believe in paying for what I get.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2008)

No legal person on here has answered my point about what advice they would give to a client if a plumber sent a bill for unpaid work from more than six years ago?
In relation to the point that if a client noticed six years later that a solicitor had overcharged and should the solicitor pay.  Well yes I think they should because they have a higher duty of care, I'm sure there must be rules from the Law Society on this.........  the onus is on the solicitor to see that everything is in order.  
I don't understand that bills are not sent out promptly, surely within the month should be normal?  Do guidelines not exist that bills should be sent out quickly.  I mean do you guys make so much money that you can wait a couple of years to start sending out invoices?  I've never heard of such a thing.  It's different if you sent out an invoice and didn't get paid and send reminders, but why after the second strongly worded reminder would one not sue for the debt?


----------



## Vanilla (29 Aug 2008)

If a plumber did work for me, didn't invoice me and came looking for payment 6 years later ( or more than) I would pay him. Then again I doubt if I would overlook the fact that I hadn't paid him. I was always told by my father that a man has to be paid for his work and that extends to every type of work or service. 

Most solicitors offices deal with hundreds of files daily. There are also staff changes now and then. Combine the two and there is always the possibility of a file being overlooked. Particularly if documents for eg have been sent for registration and it has been known for this to take up to 5 or 6 years where there have been extraordinary backlogs in the Property Registration Authority and mapping problems. I can see how a solicitor could potentially overlook one file and on completion of registration and examining the account ready to close it discover it was never invoiced.

I think every one will appreciate that this can happen in any busy business albeit very infrequently because after all, it is a business and we wouldn't survive very long if we weren't recieving fees on files.

Of course 6 years is a ridiculous amount of time to lapse before billing a client and maybe the client is within their legal rights not to pay ( depending on the circumstances of when the 6 years started to run). After that it is up to themself.

Edit: I'm reminded by Ubi's post that the file was billed but payment not received and again can see why this overlooked.


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Aug 2008)

Bronte said:


> Do guidelines not exist that bills should be sent out quickly.  I mean do you guys make so much money that you can wait a couple of years to start sending out invoices?  I've never heard of such a thing.  It's different if you sent out an invoice and didn't get paid and send reminders, but why after the second strongly worded reminder would one not sue for the debt?



The original poster said

"they (the solicitors) say they tried contact us at an apartment we lived in (in another town) at they time of the sale."

It appears from this that the solicitors did bill the OP at the time, only the bill never reached them as they had moved in the meantime. Unfortunately the OP hasn't returned to confirm if this is what happened.


----------



## jhegarty (29 Aug 2008)

The op has been collecting the post from the apartment address which the solicitor has for 6 years now...


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Aug 2008)

jhegarty said:


> The op has been collecting the post from the apartment address which the solicitor has for 6 years now...



They never said that. They did say:



> hi,*we bought a house* over 6 yrs ago from my mother( was my grandparents housre). we have rented it since and* pick up post every now and then*---never anything really there for us.anyhow our solicitor who did that sale for us has just comntacted us through my parents saying they have unpaid solicitors fees we need to pay. they say they tried contact us *at an apartment we lived in (in another town) at they time of the sale.*


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2008)

Vanilly you said what you would do (and I believe you) not what you would advise the client in relation to a plumber.  By the way if my solicitor billed me for something quite old that was overlooked I would pay too as I have great respect for their business and the quality of work they do and I too would in general know if something was owing and double check.  Ubi, I don't believe that sending a bill to an incorrect address counts as sending a bill.  In any case if one had no reply/payment after say a month or two should the business do more than wait 6 years for a reminder.  As for saying that registration takes years is no excuse for not sending a bill and that it was overlooked, that is incompetence.  About a month ago on here I suggested that to speed up registration that bills should only be sent out on registration but that was rubbished as a suggestion, you cannot have it both ways.


----------



## alaskaonline (29 Aug 2008)

now i'll join in into this discussion by saying that it's not the OP who gets paid for doing/ checking/ staying on track with the solicitors accountant side but the solicitor only him/ herself. plus for every service done by the solicitor if you break down the fees, you find "admin costs" stated on it as well - again it's not the OP who gets paid for such admin services, it's the solicitor and for that matter alone it's the solicitor who didn't do their job properly or otherwise the bill would have reached OP on time!

regardless of how often OP changed her/ his address, if the solicitor was really keen to get paid at the time (6 years ago) he would have known the right channels to get her/ his current address PLUS there is always the good aul "registered post" way which ensures that post will be delivered and signed for.

and i agree with some posters who said that where would OP stand if she had realised that the solicitor owns her 5k. nobody would really care than either and instead would tell her "tough but nothing you can do about it" and i doubt that the solicitor then would feel morally obliged to cough up 

by the way, i always pay my bills on time and would even if it's 6 years later but i understand other people's stand-points on this matter!


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Aug 2008)

alaskaonline said:


> and i agree with some posters who said that where would OP stand if she had realised that the solicitor owns her 5k. nobody would really care than either and instead would tell her "tough but nothing you can do about it" and i doubt that the solicitor then would feel morally obliged to cough up



Are you serious??? The Law Society would force the solicitor to repay her on demand.


----------



## Caveat (29 Aug 2008)

I'd say the OP is having great crack at this stage.

Any chance of feedback/further details _karenkarenk_?


----------



## FKH (29 Aug 2008)

Bottom line is that if a client asked for advice re paying the invoice I'd say that if they were sued for an invoice outstanding for over 6 years then the claim was statute barred. End of story.

If a solicitor was defending a client for a crime, even if the client committed same, the solicitor can only defend the client as per their instructions and if they want to plead not guilty that's their decision. You can't say that morally they should plead guilty and fess up to the crime.


----------



## mf1 (29 Aug 2008)

"Bottom line is that if a client asked for advice re paying the invoice I'd say that if they were sued for an invoice outstanding for over 6 years then the claim was statute barred. End of story."

I might tell them that the debt was statute barred but I'd suggest they pay it if they owe it. I definitely would not act for them if they were sued - why would you act for someone who won't pay a colleague fees?

"If a solicitor was defending a client for a crime, even if the client committed same, the solicitor can only defend the client as per their instructions and if they want to plead not guilty that's their decision. You can't say that morally they should plead guilty and fess up to the crime. "

A solicitor can decide not to do this sort of work.

mf


----------



## alaskaonline (29 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Are you serious??? The Law Society would force the solicitor to repay her on demand.


 
did i sound like i wasn't?  i meant that if she realised after 6 years the solicitor owed her money she or someone else for that matter could not demand it back from him/ her because of the "statute barred" situation and nobody would care if he doesn't pay except for her. How comes the Law Society doesn't force her to pay a bill that comes 6 years later?  you don't need to answer that.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2008)

mf1;697020 
I might tell them that the debt was statute barred but I'd suggest they pay it if they owe it. I definitely would not act for them if they were sued - why would you act for someone who won't pay a colleague fees?
 
 
mf[/quote said:
			
		

> I didn't ask about a colleague's fee and that is where the problem is, I asked if a client came with a plumber's bill of more than 6 years what would you tell them to do.  What if it was your best client of 20 years standing?  Not to do something against a colleague is not a good reason not to act for someone and I'm surprised you said it, but I do understand your loyalty to colleagues, what if the bill arrived after 20 years because the solicitor was incompetant?


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Aug 2008)

alaskaonline said:


> i meant that if she realised after 6 years the solicitor owed her money she or someone else for that matter could not demand it back from him/ her because of the "statute barred" situation and nobody would care if he doesn't pay except for her. .


The "statute barred" restriction does not apply to client funds held by solicitors. The Law Society compels all such solictors to repay all such sums on demand, regardless of how long the funds have been held. Which pretty much undermines your argument


----------



## FKH (29 Aug 2008)

"I might tell them that the debt was statute barred but I'd suggest they pay it if they owe it. I definitely would not act for them if they were sued - why would you act for someone who won't pay a colleague fees?"

It's not my job to tell people what to do, rather to advise them on their legal options which in this case would be that there is no legal mechanism to force payment of the debt. The fact that the debt is owed to a solicitor rather than someone else is irrelevant. 

Personally I wouldn't sue a colleague and I know most solicitors feel the same way Bronte.


----------



## karenkarenk (29 Aug 2008)

inanswer to all the those up on their high horse about my predicament. 1 . the solicitor did a deal at the time because i bought the house from my mother and she used him too. 2. i did pay for legal fees at the time as did my mother, this matter is about something he forgot to include at the time. 3. just because i am a new user of this site does not make me a liar/ cheat etc. my question is real and what i needed to know is the legality  of the claim by the solictor. 4. when i bought the house i was quoted a price for the work by him. i chose him because i could afford the price at the time. 3 children later our circumstances have changed so now is not the time to be given a surprise bill. 4. use your imagination , there are lots of reasons to be told at an early date what monies are owed to whom. its of benefit to both parties. 5 that solicitor has since been in contact and apologised firstly we should not have been contacted as the bill would have been out of date but more importantly, their system at the time was very outdated and they mislaid the information stating we had paid in full. they have since located it.


----------



## Vanilla (29 Aug 2008)

Great, all's well that end's well so. Don't think anyone was calling you a 'liar/cheat'. The discussion went off on a tangent!


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2008)

FKH said:


> It's not my job to tell people what to do, rather to advise them on their legal options which in this case would be that there is no legal mechanism to force payment of the debt. The fact that the debt is owed to a solicitor rather than someone else is irrelevant.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't sue a colleague and I know most solicitors feel the same way Bronte.


 Thank you for that FKH ( I was beginning to feel I was defending the indefensible) I of course know that solicitors don't like to act against one another, (understandably particularly in a small country, nor do other professionals) that's why the Law Society have a list of solicitors that will and everyone is entitled to legal representation no matter who is being sued.

OP that's a great end result.


----------



## karenkarenk (29 Aug 2008)

yes good result thanks to those who helped ease a very worried mother, also see MF1's answer no. 19. i think somewhere in there i became morally questionable!!-


----------



## dem_syhp (29 Aug 2008)

Great news! I wonder was he/she reading this?  Anyone want to own up   It was fascinating to see which side people fell on this one!


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Aug 2008)

Thanks karenkarenk for the update.



karenkarenk said:


> 5 that solicitor has since been in contact and apologised firstly we should not have been contacted as the bill would have been out of date but more importantly, their system at the time was very outdated and they mislaid the information stating we had paid in full. they have since located it.



It was bad form of them to request payment of you, after such a long delay, when they weren't 100% sure (or hadn't checked) that the bill was actually outstanding.


----------



## postman pat (17 Nov 2008)

just a thought..morals and solicitors........strange bedfellows


  Pat


----------



## Vanilla (17 Nov 2008)

postman pat said:


> just a thought..morals and solicitors........strange bedfellows
> 
> 
> Pat


 
There's another site you might prefer on this vein- ratemysolicitor.com or something like that. Google it. Sounds like it's just up your street.


----------



## sandrat (17 Nov 2008)

got a cheque in the post recently from the solicitor who handled the purchase of our house 3 and a bit years ago - refund for something or other, that was a nice surprise! Better than a bill anyway!


----------

