# Solicitor does not want to represent me



## Jim Jonews

I had an accident and had an insurance claim settled recently but my solicitor took over €6,000 from the settlement cheque. I found out later that this was wrong and threatened to make a complaint to the Law Society. This did the trick after a number of letters over 7 months and I finally got a complete refund when I gave her 7 days notice. 
However, she is now saying that she no longer wants to represent my 11 year old son for an insurance claim due to the same accident. Other than her over-charging, I was happy with the rest of her work. Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?
The main resaon I would like to retain her is that everything is now much more complicated as my wife and I are separated (believe me when I say "complicated"!).
The Law Society have told me that they "wish to advise that we are unable to assist you with your query, as the Society does not provide legal advice". They have also suggested that I contact the court, who have told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit but they are unable to tell me where these rules or regulations are so I cannot quote them.


----------



## mf1

She does not want to act for you/your son. She is not obliged to do so. She should formally notify you of this and advise you of  your options i.e. instruct another firm to take over the file and for you to discharge the costs to date or formally "come off record". 

mf


----------



## bond-007

I believe that it is standard practice where a client has complained to the law society about their solicitor that the solicitor will come off record and wash their hands of the matter or matters pertaining to the client.


----------



## mf1

bond-007 said:


> I believe that it is standard practice where a client has complained to the law society about their solicitor that the solicitor will come off record and wash their hands of the matter or matters pertaining to the client.



Do you blame them? We only have one side of the story here. 

mf


----------



## bond-007

mf1 said:


> Do you blame them? We only have one side of the story here.
> 
> mf


Very true.


----------



## ClubMan

Jim Jonews said:


> I had an accident and had an insurance claim settled recently but my solicitor took over €6,000 from the settlement cheque. I found out later that this was wrong


What exactly do you mean?


> and I finally got a complete refund


Why was she not entitled to some payment?


> Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?


Sounds like she can and she is not. In which case you need to get any loose ends with regard to her withdrawal from the case sorted out and get a new solicitor I guess?


----------



## bond-007

> Why was she not entitled to some payment?


I would assume as the case was settled the loosing side would pay the OP's costs, hence the complaint.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Don’t worry,Clubman, she told me that she got paid her full costs but then took the extra €6K when the cheque arrived, despite section 68 (3) of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994 which states that: 
“A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor”. By taking the €6K, she was getting paid twice. I became aware of this when I heard that it happened to a good number of soldiers who had deafness claims following their time in the army.
The Law Society suggested that I contact the court, who has told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit. Is this correct?


----------



## murphaph

If she just took 6k from you and she wasn't entitled to it, isn't that a criminal matter? 

I understand what it's like being in "complicated" legal messes OP. It's very frustrating and the Law Society are as good as useless. I have learned quickly that you hold on to a good solicitor if you find one.

I wouldn't mind if we abandoned Common Law altogether and adopted Civil Law.


----------



## MOB

The matter is not at all as presented by the OP.  The section of the Solicitors Amendment Act cited, when read with the following sections, in essence provides that there can be no deduction for legal charges from a compensation cheque without prior agreement in writing.  That is as it should be, and if the solicitor concerned did not have prior agreement then she was indeed in the wrong.  But it is completely misleading to suggest that there are no circumstances in which such deductions would be appropriate.  They are often quite appropriate.


----------



## bond-007

Could someone list such deductions? Esp in view of the fact that the settlement included costs?


----------



## Jim Jonews

MOB says that if the solicitor concerned did not have prior agreement then she was indeed in the wrong then goes on to say that it is completely misleading to suggest that there are no circumstances in which such deductions would be appropriate. I made no such suggestion.
I would like to add that Section *68.*—(1) states that 
“On the taking of instructions to provide legal services to a client, or as soon as is practicable thereafter, a solicitor shall provide the client with particulars in writing of—( _a_ ) the actual charges, or ( _b_ ) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, an estimate (as near as may be) of the charges, or( _c_ ) where the provision of particulars of the actual charges or an estimate of such charges is not in the circumstances possible or practicable, the basis on which the charges are to be made. Basically, a solicitor should inform a client IN WRITING of the actual charges, an estimate of the charges or the basis on which the charges are to be made. This did not happen. It was, indeed, a criminal matter. She took €6K of mine that wasn’t hers but I gather it happens quite regularly. If I was wrong, she would not have given it back.

However, this is beside the point, which is can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation? Does she have to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit? I am unable to verify these rules or regulations and so I cannot quote them to her


----------



## z105

Jim Jonews



> contentious business


  ??



> She took €6K of mine that wasn’t hers but I gather it happens quite regularly.



Can't see that mentioned in the act


----------



## MOB

"However, this is beside the point, which is can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation? "

She can come off record.   If another solicitor does not take over the case, she will apply to the court, and this will be by Notice of Motion. 

I have a real difficulty with the idea that anyone could simultaneously believe their solicitor was a cheat and still want that solicitor to represent them (or their child).  Something here simply does not add up.   I don't think the court will entertain this sort of hair splitting. 

Her application to come off record will certainly be granted in circumstances where her client's father (who instructed her) does not trust her.

"She took €6K of mine that wasn’t hers"  - quite possibly true; we don't have the full facts so it is impossible to say.

"but I gather it happens quite regularly."   - certainly not true

"If I was wrong, she would not have given it back." - certainly not true: no solicitor wants a Law Society complaint.  Waiving a fee or part of a fee - even if properly due - is often an easier way to deal with the matter than having to put up a detailed defence.


There is a perception out there that solicitor's charges which involve a deduction from the 'compensation cheque' are always inappropriate.  This perception is completely wrong.   Of course, there was in the past in some quarters of the legal profession a perception that such a deduction was always appropriate.  That perception was equally wrong, and has been very effectively stamped out by the Law Society.    It is not surprising that the OP might not understand this: many people have ill-informed views on the matter.    Anyone who has in interest in this could usefully read the Court's comments about the publicly reported utterances of Carmel Foley (Director of Consumer Affairs) in a High Court judgment at the following link.  

[broken link removed] 

For those who want an executive summary (on this particular aspect - the case itself dealt with other issues):

Carmel Foley quote in Irish Independent as to her reason for calling an 'emergency meeting' of Law Society:  ".....nothing less than scandalous if solicitors are taking money over and above the fees which they are getting...."    (The headline in this case was "double-charging abuse case solicitors may be struck off")

The High Court view:  "No qualifications were offered....[by Foley].. to meet circumstances in which... [a deduction\extra charge].. would be entirely lawful" and "whatever the motivation, her judgment...was both inappropriate and unwise".

I am sorry for such a long-winded post.   My reason for doing so is that there are many people out there who have had compensation claims dealt with by solicitors, and many of them have had deductions from their compensation cheque.   If this has happened to you, it does not mean that you were cheated (it is of course  possible that you were - but don't jump to this conclusion).


----------



## Sunny

MOB;589903I said:
			
		

> have a real difficulty with the idea that anyone could simultaneously believe their solicitor was a cheat and still want that solicitor to represent them (or their child).


 
Can't understand this either. If I thought someone had helped to themselves to €6000 of my money that they weren't entitled to, there is no way they would be representing me or anyone I knew again.


----------



## Bronte

OP the solicitor does not want to represent your son anymore as there is now bad blood between you.  I imagine you "threatening to" and actually contacting the law society etc would mean that she no longer feels she is the best person to act in your son's interests.  What I cannot understand is why you would want someone you say has taken money off you to represent your son.  To answer your second point, you have found out from the courts that a certain document needs to be sent in.  So you need to find a new solicitor to act for you and get the file from your old solicitor.


----------



## mf1

Below is an extract from the Courts Service website and may assist in explaining about costs. Specifically why if you are awarded costs in a successful action, you may still have additional costs to pay to your solicitor.  

People confuse their solicitors with some kind of "treasure chest" in a way they don't with other  professionals. If you have your accountant do your accounts, you expect to pay. If you engage a solicitor to represent you in a Court action, you don't expect to pay them - you expect someone else to. In many cases, where your client, the Plaintiff, successfully sues a Defendant and obtains  an order for costs and those costs are easily recoverable from the Defendant, it may well be that those costs paid cover all the costs associated with the case. In many cases, they don't or while an  Order has been made, the Defendant cannot pay them. 

The client is always primarily responsible for all their Solicitors  costs - they may get an indemnity from the Defendant for some or all of those costs which may offset the responsibility but that responsibility is always there. 

I think the whole Personal Injuries Costs Syndrome was something that skewed people’s logic/rational way of thinking. I don’t do much P I work – I know that there are lots of perfectly legitimate claimants out there ( I act for some of them) but equally I’ve come across many people who believe they have an entitlement to a windfall for any form of minor inconvenience/bruising, and they inflate and exaggerate their claim without any shame. Add that to the Greedy Lawyers who actively encouraged claims (Army Deafness being the classic) and you can understand why clients don’t think going to Court should ever cost them anything. Contrast that though with a Boundary Dispute between neighbours ( possibly your worst possible case) both of whom are behaving badly and you can more clearly understand why ( a) they may both be ordered to pay their own costs or  (b) a proportion of the other sides. 

The party claiming costs - usually the successful Plaintiff or Defendant, must demonstrate 
to the satisfaction of the Taxing Master that such costs as are incurred were proper and reasonable in all the circumstances. The Taxing Master is guided by wide experience, gained by a professional background as a solicitor and in taxing costs.

Categories of costs

There are two main categories of costs;

(i) Party and Party Costs, and

(ii) Solicitor and Client Costs

Party and Party costs:
Party and Party costs cover all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by one party for the purposes of the relevant proceedings which the other side is obliged to pay. There may be costs in an action that are not allowable as Party and Party costs. The party claiming costs must justify why they were incurred and why those costs should be allowed. The Party and Party Costs may not cover the whole of the costs incurred in an action and the courts have held that:-

In costs between party and party one does not get full indemnity for costs incurred against the other. The principle to be considered in relation to party and party costs is that you are bound in the conduct of your case to have regard to the fact that your adversary may in the end have to pay your costs. You cannot indulge in a 'luxury of payment'.

All such costs, charges and expenses which appear to the Taxing Master to be necessary and proper in pursuit of the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of a person are essentially allowable costs.

Solicitor and client costs:
Solicitor and client costs are those costs that a client is obliged to pay his solicitor which are not recoverable under Party and Party costs.

The courts have held that the following distinction is made between Party and Party and Solicitor and Client costs in an action:-

"The costs of the Plaintiff as against the party do not mean all the costs he has incurred but all the costs he has incurred by the act of the defendant. That is the difference between party and party and solicitor and client costs - e.g.. it may be reasonable to have several consultations but it does not follow he is to get them all against the party."

Bills of costs
Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides for charges to clients. Under these provisions a solicitor should furnish a detailed statement of all the legal costs to his client. This statement of costs should contain:-

(a) a summary of the legal services provided;

(b) the total amount of damages received or other monies recovered;

(c) details of all the charges incurred and the nature of same.

Generally at the conclusion of the business or by arrangement with the client the solicitor will produce a detailed statement of costs and this is known as a Bill of Costs.

Generally, before making any payment for costs, the client has a right to have his costs taxed. At the conclusion of the taxation there is a duty imposed upon the amount of costs allowed by the Taxing Master - fees are set out in the Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order. However, in Solicitor and Client taxations, if more than one sixth of the amount claimed is disallowed, the client may not be liable for this duty, otherwise this duty is payable by the Solicitor who presents the Bill of Costs.


----------



## Bronte

OK MF1 I'm printing that out and in about a year's time when I've figured it out I'll let you know if I have any questions.   Normally you write so clearly - I gave up about half way through.   How is an ordinary person supposed to understand how much they will have to pay with that?  No wonder we have so many people on AAM confused about fees


----------



## bond-007

Could give an example of  Solicitor and client costs that are not recoverable from a loosing party?


----------



## ubiquitous

Bronte said:


> Normally you write so clearly


well mf1 did say



> Below is an extract from the Courts Service website


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks for all the replies, particularly MOB who says “She can come off record. If another solicitor does not take over the case, she will apply to the court, and this will be by Notice of Motion”. It probably will be granted because of the difficulties that have arisen between us but it will be professionally embarrassing for her to have to admit in open court that she acted illegally by failing to send a Section 68 letter informing me IN WRITING of the actual charges, an estimate of the charges or the basis on which the charges are to be made.

To answer all the other posts, although it does seem strange that I still want her to represent my son, this is simply due to the fact that everything between his mother and I is so contentious that it would be easier to let her continue than to instruct another solicitor.
Also, I don’t believe there is much chance in the case being successful as he wasn’t involved in the accident (the claim is for Nervous Shock) and I am only pursuing it after being told, by this solicitor, that my son could sue me if I don’t.

"but I gather it happens quite regularly." - certainly not true- Ask all the deaf soldiers and the residents of the homes who were sexually abused. 

"If I was wrong, she would not have given it back." - certainly not true: no solicitor wants a Law Society complaint. Waiving a fee or part of a fee - even if properly due - is often an easier way to deal with the matter than having to put up a detailed defence.
Are we to believe that my solicitor is so well paid that she would simply give back €6,000 that she was properly due simply because it was easier than putting up a detailed defence? Solicitors regularly put up defences for other people because that is their job. Try asking your doctor, plumber or shop keeper for the money you paid that they were properly due it. Imagine a car mechanic giving someone even sixty euro cause they didn’t want to bother servicing their own car or a painter paying someone to paint their own house. Unbelievable. 

Bronte says “To answer your second point, you have found out from the courts that a certain document needs to be sent in. So you need to find a new solicitor to act for you and get the file from your old solicitor.
The Courts have told me this over the phone but won’t tell me where the regulations for this exist. I need to know this before I decide what to do next. In relation to finding a new solicitor, I have dealt with three in the past two years (insurance claim, family law and conveyance) and have made successful complaints against them all. I simply don’t know where I can get a good solicitor as all three were recommended personally but all three were breaking the law themselves.

So, I still need to know what rules and regulations govern solicitors coming of record.


----------



## mf1

bond-007 said:


> Could give an example of  Solicitor and client costs that are not recoverable from a loosing party?



Just see this part of the extract.

"Party and Party costs:
Party and Party costs cover all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by one party for the purposes of the relevant proceedings which the other side is obliged to pay. There may be costs in an action that are not allowable as Party and Party costs. The party claiming costs must justify why they were incurred and why those costs should be allowed. The Party and Party Costs may not cover the whole of the costs incurred in an action and the courts have held that:-

In costs between party and party one does not get full indemnity for costs incurred against the other. The principle to be considered in relation to party and party costs is that you are bound in the conduct of your case to have regard to the fact that your adversary may in the end have to pay your costs. You cannot indulge in a 'luxury of payment'. "

A classic one would be a difficult Testamentary Case - family arguing over a will. You may have a difficult/nervous/agitated client who wants constant reassurance/contact/updates(when there is none!). Costs are  not always awarded out of an estate so before deciding the odds/chances of success there may be extensive consultation with Counsel etc.,etc., Costs are incurred there and they would be unlikely to be recoverable from the unsuccessful party. 

Most Court cases are about one of two things: 
1. Liability - is one person entirely to blame?
2. Quantum - how much?

In cases where there is no dispute, settlement is easy.   Where there is a dispute, its for the Court to tease it out and the Court ultimately decides costs. 

mf


----------



## mf1

"In relation to finding a new solicitor, I have dealt with three in the past two years (insurance claim, family law and conveyance) and have made successful complaints against them all. I simply don’t know where I can get a good solicitor as all three were recommended personally but all three were breaking the law themselves."

Oh dear. Or to paraprhase Oscar Wilde: to complain about one or two solicitors is tragic but to successfully complain about three is just downright suspect!

mf


----------



## ClubMan

If we're paraphrasing writers' quotes about parents then maybe [broken link removed]* is apposite here too? 

* Contains strong language!


----------



## Jim Jonews

Who is suspect, me or them? The Law Society found in my favour on all three counts.


----------



## MOB

"Are we to believe that my solicitor is so well paid that she would simply give back €6,000 that she was properly due simply because it was easier than putting up a detailed defence?"

Yep.  

That is what I would probably have done; because the work I had to do defending myself would have been unpaid work, and the time lost could be more profitably spent dealing with clients who want my services and are happy to pay me.   There is only one way for a solicitor to win in a dispute with a client and that is to not have it.   Only if the matter goes public and reputation is at risk would any sensible solicitor feel a need to deal with a dispute on the merits.  Otherwise, the sensible practice is to just get it resolved, get rid of client's files to someone else and move one.

"The Law Society found in my favour on all three counts".   Sorry.  My apologies then.  I had understood that you had threatened action and that the solicitor had taken the step of unlaterally refunding the disputed charge rather than go down the road of a full investigation.  However, if the solicitor in fact only gave back the charge on foot of an investigation and a finding by the Law Society that she should do so, this completely changes the complexion of the thing.  Though, to be fair, this was not at all obvious from your post.  It is still the case, of course, that many solicitors would unilaterally refund a disputed charge rather than go through a Law Society investigation.

".......but it will be professionally embarrassing for her to have to admit in open court that she acted illegally by failing to send a Section 68 letter informing me IN WRITING of the actual charges, an estimate of the charges or the basis on which the charges are to be made."

Are you seriously suggesting that, somehow, you could force a solicitor to continue acting for your son by a threat of embarrassing her in the High Court?   And that your already toxic relationship with this solicitor will not suffer even more?   And that none of this will cause grave difficulty in her representing your son's interests?    For goodness sake, you have a situation where your son very clearly needs new representation.  Would you not just get on with it.


----------



## Jim Jonews

"Are we to believe that my solicitor is so well paid that she would simply give back €6,000 that she was properly due simply because it was easier than putting up a detailed defence?"
Yep. That is what I would probably have done; because the work I had to do defending myself would have been unpaid work”

Sorry, MOB, but the failure to defend herself, if she truly believed she was in the right, cost her €6,000 so its not right saying this was “unpaid work”.

Your son very clearly needs new representation. Would you not just get on with it. Its not that easy when I’m separated from a women who fails to accept that parents are equal. Getting a new solicitor for him will be next to impossible. Given the problems I’ve had with the solicitors I’ve recently dealt with, how can I possibly get one that will be any better than this one?

This is getting a bit of track. I still need to know what rules and regulations govern solicitors coming of record. Can anyone tell me?


----------



## mf1

Per MOB's earlier post. 

"She can come off record. If another solicitor does not take over the case, she will apply to the court, and this will be by Notice of Motion. 

I have a real difficulty with the idea that anyone could simultaneously believe their solicitor was a cheat and still want that solicitor to represent them (or their child). Something here simply does not add up. I don't think the court will entertain this sort of hair splitting. 

Her application to come off record will certainly be granted in circumstances where her client's father (who instructed her) does not trust her."

You cannot compel her to continue to act for you/your child. The Court may query why she is making the application and, given that there is a minor child involved, may seek to adjourn things until you find another solicitor. But you're in a real bind,  you say the case is probably not great anyway ( so why would anyone want to take the case on?) and you've successfully reported three solicitors to the Law Society.  So why would any solicitor want to act for you/your son?   

So - what happens? 
1. You can move the file - I understand that there are some very good solicitors out there - but they may not want to act for you. 
2. You can let it sit and let the current solicitor either do nothing or make  her application. 
3. You can discuss this with the childs mother and see does she want to take the case over as the childs mother maybe through her own solicitor?
4. You could decide the case is useless and try to walk away from the case entirely. 

mf


----------



## Bronte

OP I can't believe you've had 3 such bad experiences.  It seems quite unbelievable.  Maybe you should try one of the solicitors that reply here on AAM but they might be a tad afraid of you methinks.  It seems your options are a) to go to a new solicitor and if not b) your current solicitor can apply to court to no longer represent you or c) represent yourself.  


MOB - very sad you would rather give up 6K than prove you were in the right.  I mean that from the point of view of the law being something to uphold and you being part of it.  Something wrong with the way these things are working then.


----------



## bond-007

I agree it is very strange that a solicitor would simply give up €6000 if they are in the right.


----------



## ubiquitous

Not so strange - in fact extremely commonplace. Sad but true.

There is hardly a business in the country that has never written off a bad debt, even when they are totally in the right and the defaulting customer is totally in the wrong. 

Quite commonly in such situations, it is simpler and less stressful for the business to write off the sum owed, put it down to experience and put the issue behind them, rather than wasting further time and money in chasing a debt that might never be paid. 

Remember, a solicitors firm is a business like any other and the same rules apply. In fact I attended a credit management seminar last year and the presenter explained how in his opinion solicitors are the worst of all businesses in managing their debtors and collecting the debts owing to them.


----------



## Seagull

bond-007 said:


> I agree it is very strange that a solicitor would simply give up €6000 if they are in the right.


It comes down to simple maths. 

How much time do they expect to have to spend defending themselves against the law society case? => A
How much do they charge by the hour? => B
How much is the disputed fee? => C

If A * B > C, it's not financially worth fighting.

Other considerations are what would have to be delayed/rejected due to the time taken to defend the law society case.


----------



## MOB

When I say I would write off the fee in such a situation, this is from a perspective of this sort of thing never having happened to me.   I do admit I once had a complaint (a justified complaint) about delay, and to bring things to a quick conclusion I firstly finished the job and secondly  reduced the fee (and having done this off my own bat, I had a client who sent a nice letter off their own bat to say they were now completely happy), but that is about it.  It may be the case that there are solicitors who tend to rub up clients the wrong way, who get complaints and who tend to defend everything.  But I think my perspective is that of the majority - forget about winning the war, just avoid the war in the first place.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Ubiquitous, you musn’t have read my earlier posts. You say that solicitors are the worst of all businesses in managing their debtors and collecting the debts owing to them. This wasn’t a debt. She got the cheque for my compensation and took €6.000 from it, then gave me what was left. If it was a debt, I would have owed her money and your explanation might make sense but she gave me back the money!!!

Bronte, yea, that’s how bad it was. Thanks for the recommendation.

mfi asks as the case is probably not great anyway ( so why would anyone want to take the case on? I have been told by this solicitor that if I do not pursue the case on behalf of my son, he may pursue me for not doing so when he becomes 18. I’d rather have the case go ahead and be thrown out than explain this situation to him in ten years time. Don’t start on about our relationship now cause he gets a hard enough time from his mother about me at the moment. No idea how we’ll end up, friend or foe.
A solicitor who does everything above board and upholds the law would have nothing to fear from me. All my complaints have been upheld by the Law Society and so quite obviously the 3 solicitors were in the wrong. 

I still need to know what rules and regulations govern solicitors coming of record. Can anyone tell me?


----------



## putsch

I think there may not be any specific "rules and regulations". Just a matter of the solicitors own decision.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks, putsch, but I think there are. A solicitor came off record recently in my family law case but my wife opposed it. Luckily, he had got me to write a letter consenting to this and had signed an affidavit for me so there must be some sort of regulation on the matter.


----------



## ubiquitous

Jim Jonews said:


> Ubiquitous, you musn’t have read my earlier posts. You say that solicitors are the worst of all businesses in managing their debtors and collecting the debts owing to them. This wasn’t a debt. She got the cheque for my compensation and took €6.000 from it, then gave me what was left. If it was a debt, I would have owed her money and your explanation might make sense but she gave me back the money!!!



I did read your earlier posts. If you read mine, you will see that my comments were general ones and had no specific relevance to your particular case.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Ubiquitous says, in relation to not reading my posts
_“_If you read mine, you will see that my comments were general ones and had no specific relevance to your particular case”. 
Sorry but I wrongly presumed that anyone posting on this thread would have been commenting on this particular case and not using it to discuss other issues.You made out that this was a bad debt in your referral to Bond who said 
“I agree it is very strange that a solicitor would simply give up €6000 if they are in the right” 
and you responded by saying
“Not so strange - in fact extremely commonplace. Sad but true. There is hardly a business in the country that has never written off a bad debt, even when they are totally in the right and the defaulting customer is totally in the wrong”.
Start a thread about people not paying solicitors fees and about solicitors not bothering to pursue them if you want but by going off the subject here (solicitors taking money that wasn’t theirs), I may not get an answer to what I thought was a reasonably straight forward question which was
“Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?The court have told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit but they are unable to tell me where these rules or regulations are so I cannot quote them”. 
I later said “So, I still need to know what rules and regulations govern solicitors coming of record”.
Afterwards, I said “This is getting a bit of track. I still need to know what rules and regulations govern solicitors coming of record. Can anyone tell me?”
(Yea, I’ve asked three times now and no-one has come up with an answer I can refer to)


----------



## ubiquitous




----------



## MOB

I am very sorry indeed for the delay in dealing with the original request.  I confirm that the relevant rules and regulations depend upon the court.   For example, in the High Court this is governed by Order 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which states in the relevant part:

"3. (1) Where a solicitor who has acted for a party in any proceedings has died or become bankrupt or cannot be found or has failed to take out a practising certificate or has been struck off the roll of solicitors or has ceased to act for the party, and the party has not given notice of change of solicitor or notice of intention to act in person in accordance with the provisions of rule 2, any other party to the proceedings or (where the solicitor has ceased to act) the solicitor may, on notice to be served on the first-mentioned party, personally, or by letter addressed to his last-known place of residence, unless the Court otherwise directs, apply to the Court for an order declaring that the solicitor has ceased to be the solicitor acting for the first-mentioned party in the proceedings, and the Court may make an order accordingly."


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thats great, mob, thanks, but this is the Circuit Court. Does that make any difference?


----------



## efm

Jim Jonews said:


> Thats great, mob, thanks, but this is the Circuit Court. Does that make any difference?


 
Maybe you should talk to a solicitor?  

AAM should not be taken as a substitute for actual and pertinent legal advice and actively disclaims any responsibility for any alleged advice published on this board.


----------



## Jim Jonews

“Maybe you should talk to a solicitor?”
Anyone reading my op and subsequent posts would know why I do not want to engage another solicitor.

”AAM should not be taken as a substitute for actual and pertinent legal advice and actively disclaims any responsibility for any alleged advice published on this board”.
I am not looking for legal advice but for a verifiable source that indicates the rules and regulations for a solicitor coming off record in the Circuit Court. If and when I get it, I will be quoting the source and not AAM.

Mob directed me but to the rules for the High Court and what I need, if anyone can help, is a similar direction to the rules governing the Circuit Court.


----------



## Bronte

I didn't realise you didn't want to hire a solicitor.  Maybe you could go to a book shop and purchase a book on this issue.  If you don't find it in your local Eason's you could try one of the specialist shops in Dublin.  If I was you I'd be more concerned about the fact that your son could sue you in the future (not sure if this is actually true) if you don't take a case for him rather then worrying about your current solicitor coming off record.  Why don't you let his mother take the case for your son and save you the hassle?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks, Bronte, but every tiny little thing between herself and myself is just SO difficult (can't go into details here). I just want the currrent solicitor to finish off the job she started. If she stays on the case, my son won't have grounds to sue.


----------



## holly

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually sympathise with your solicitor.. however, I believe this might be what you are looking for:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0027/sec0074.html#zza27y1994s74

By the look of it, if your son's case has already started, it's not your decision, it the judge who will rule on your solicitor's motion. Given your history, your solicitor has a good argument methinks.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks, Holly. Thats exactly what I'm looking for. 
By the way, why do you actually sympathise with the solicitor? Is it because she had to give back the six grand that wasn't hers or is it because she was caught out by me?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Maybe I jumped the gun there, Holly. 
_Solicitors Amendment Act Section 74.—(1) A solicitor who has accepted instructions to appear in court for a client who is in custody may not withdraw from the client's case without obtaining permission from the court before which that client is next scheduled to appear._
Custody here seems to relate to a prisoner rather than a child.


----------



## hope4711

Basically if a solicitor wants to come off record they issue a notice of motion together with grounding affidavit setting out the reasons why.  Generally speaking if the solicitor can show that the relationship between client and solicitor has broken down the court will allow them come off record.  Given that there is a minor child involved a court will adopt a tougher approach but will want a good reason as to why another solicitor cannot be instructed - to be honest the it's too akward line probably won't get you very far.

I don't think the embarrassment factor is such an issue.  I've often been in court when these applications are on and it isn't really a factor.


----------



## Jim Jonews

hope4711 says that_ "if a solicitor wants to come off record they issue a notice of motion together with grounding affidavit setting out the reasons why"._ 
I would like to write to the solicitor but need to refer to this. Where can I source it, Please?


----------



## holly

I’m not a solicitor, and hopefully one of the solicitors who subscribe to this site will correct any mistakes but, if all you are trying to do is find some obscure law that you think will help you force your solicitor to keep representing you – there doesn’t seem to be one.

As earlier – a solicitor has the right to apply to the court to withdraw from any case at any time. To do this, they have to file a motion. As I understand it, a motion is a procedural request to the supervising judge. You will be served (I think) a copy of the motion and the affidavit and will probably (?) have a chance to respond after which the judge will decide whether or not the solicitor must continue to represent you.


Order 52 of the Rules of the Superior Court

*MOTIONS* AND OTHER APPLICATIONS 

1. *All interlocutory applications* to the Court and all applications authorised by these Rules to be made to the Court shall be made by *motion*, save as otherwise provided by these Rules.

I feel sorry for your solicitor as you certainly come across as an awkward person to deal with. Believe it or not, professional people like solicitors, doctors, teachers, etc. have rights too, and that includes the right to say, no I don’t want to work with you and I am therefore going to employ the neccessary procedures to terminate our professional relationship.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Holly, Its funny that you'd feel sorry for my solicitor and make out that I'm awkward. She put her hand into my pocket and took out over 6 grand. Maybe I should have accepted this rather than being awkward?


----------



## holly

totally missed my point again Jim.....


----------



## so-crates

Jim, I don't think holly has any problem with your solicitor returning or having to return the €6,000. Nor may I say, does her doing so indicate that she engaged in any deceit, there have been several reasonable answers to the question as to why she would choose to do so irrespective of her culpability. 
To be honest that has nothing to do with your query or holly's response except that it probably was the cause of your needing to ask. 

From what I can see your question is "How can I force this woman to continue representing my son" and the answer you are getting is consistently, "You can't reasonably force her". This doesn't appear to satisfy you, which indicates that you hope that there is some administrative trick that you can use instead. We know nothing about you except what you write in your posts and your dogged insistence that there must be something you can "quote" at your solicitor to your benefit and her detriment certainly for me (and I suspect for holly) meets the definition of "awkward".


----------



## Jim Jonews

"How can I force this woman to continue representing my son" Socrates says "You can't reasonably force her". This doesn't appear to satisfy you, which indicates that you hope that there is some administrative trick that you can use instead. We know nothing about you except what you write in your posts and your dogged insistence that there must be something you can "quote" at your solicitor to your benefit and her detriment.

Thats not really the case. I just want to know where I can reference the actual rules or regulations that govern these matters. All I want is to be able to write back to her and say you can come off record if you x, y & z. If she can come off record, she can come off record but no-one has yet to give me an answer to my op which said that the Circuit Court told me by phone that my solicitor has to submit a Notice of Motion and an affidavit but they are unable to tell me where these rules or regulations are so I cannot quote them.

This is not necessarily to the detriment of this solicitor if she has to follow the rules and regulations (if there actually are any). I'm not looking for an "administrative trick", just a verifiable reference to what the Circuit Court have told me


----------



## ubiquitous

Why do you feel the need to specify the regulations to her in the first instance? If she wants to come off record, surely it is up to her to comply with the appropriate requirements, and for the courts to satisfy themselves of her compliance. It is hardly your role as a lay person to have to police this?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Dear Posters,
My solicitor represented me in an insurance claim following a road traffic accident.
The claim was settled with an agreed amount. The solicitor specifically told me that the amount agreed to was the amount that I would receive as all her costs were covered. 
Subsequently, when I attended at her office to receive the cheque, she gave me a cheque from her own account which was more than Є6,000 less than the agreed amount. I later found out that this form of double-charging was common place amongst the soldiers who received compensation for the deafness caused during their military service.
I wrote to my solicitor looking for a refund and said that I would make a complaint to the Law Society. My letters were ignored for 7 months with the final one giving her 7 days notice. After the 7 days, I sent my complaint to the Law Society. Shortly afterwards, I received a reimbursement of the monies taken from me. 
Since then, she has informed me that she no longer wants to represent my son, who has a claim pending from the same accident. He wasn’t involved in the accident but the claim is that he suffered “Nervous Shock”. I don’t think this claim will be successful but my solicitor has told me that if I do not proceed with this claim, my son may sue me when he turns 18.
My wife and I have separated since the accident and every tiny aspect of our lives is contentious, ruling out the possibility that we could jointly get another solicitor. I would prefer this solicitor to continue with the case. What I need to know is as follows:
What does a solicitor need to do to come off record? I would prefer a link or a reference rather than simply opinions as I want to write back to her outlining what she is obliged to do. We are all welcome to our own opinions but I need something definite to return to her.
Regards,
Jim


----------



## ubiquitous

Jim Jonews said:


> ...I want to write back to her outlining what she is obliged to do.



Why? Surely whatever procedure she follows is matter between herself and the court?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Because "_I would prefer this solicitor to continue with the case"._


----------



## ubiquitous

But surely you can communicate this to her without having to quote to her chapter & verse of the applicable regulations that she must follow if she wants to come off record?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Yea, I can write to her and tell her whatever I want. No need for chapter and verse. Just a simple line, ie "For a solicitor to come off record they must x,y and z". No big deal but no-one can tell me if these regulations exist or not.


----------



## ubiquitous

Sorry, I can't fathom why you need to specify "For a solicitor to come off record they must x,y and z".

I'm beginning to think this entire thread is a troll.


----------



## Jim Jonews

I don't need "chapter and verse". Just the regulations that govern solicitors coming of record in the Circuit Court, if they actually exist. I just want to write
Dear Solicitor, 
You cannot come off record as I do not consent to your doing so. If you want, you can apply to the Circuit Court in accordance with Section X,(Y-Z) 1959. 
Regards,
Jim


----------



## ubiquitous

Dear Solicitor, 
You cannot come off record as I do not consent to your doing so. If you want, you can apply to the Circuit Court in accordance with applicable regulations
Regards,
Jim


----------



## Jim Jonews

Not a troll, just asking a question that no-one seems to have an answer to. I was referred to the rules of the High Court (but this is Circuit) and I was referred to the Solicitors Amendment act covering solicitors coming off record for prisoners (but not for children). 
Ubiquitous, if you don't have the answer then don't bother posting, please.


----------



## Guest117

ubiquitous said:


> Dear Solicitor,
> You cannot come off record as I do not consent to your doing so. If you want, you can apply to the Circuit Court in accordance with applicable regulations
> Regards,
> Jim


 

Jim

I think that is your cue to say " Thanks Ubiquitous - splendid suggestion - Oh and thanks to all the other posters who tried to help"


----------



## ubiquitous

Jim Jonews said:


> Ubiquitous, if you don't have the answer then don't bother posting, please.



What on earth is wrong with my suggestion, ie refer to "applicable regulations" if you don't know the exact reference?


----------



## Jim Jonews

I don't know the name of the 3rd man on the moon but if someone asked me I wouldn't tell them it dosen't matter, I'd tell them I didn't know. I've asked a question and a few posters seem to have taken offence. Its almost 6 on a friday evening and if no-one can give me an answer, just let it go.


----------



## ubiquitous

Good luck to you.


----------



## so-crates

I think, ubiquitous, it is exactly as I said; he doesn't want the solicitor to come off the record so he is looking for a way to make it as much hassle for her as possible. The only reason to be so pedantic about the minutae of the regulation as opposed to your suggested format is in the hope that there is something in it for him. 

Jim on a technicality you are asking to be supplied with "chapter and verse" or rather "section and paragraph" if you prefer to be specific. I think everyone is baffled by why.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Socrates,
if you don't know the answer, why don't you just leave it?
Believe me, if I try to organise a new solicitor with  my ex-wife, it will be ten times more hassle for me and just not worth it.
If you don't know then just let it go.


----------



## so-crates

Good luck Jim, I think you are on a hiding to nothing as they say but good luck anyway.


----------



## Complainer

Jim Jonews said:


> Since then, she has informed me that she no longer wants to represent my son, who has a claim pending from the same accident. He wasn’t involved in the accident but the claim is that he suffered “Nervous Shock”. I don’t think this claim will be successful but my solicitor has told me that if I do not proceed with this claim, my son may sue me when he turns 18.


This seems quite ludicrous. Presumably, the solicitor wants to get out because she too believes the claim will be unsuccessful.

You are opting to take a claim that you don't think you will win, to cover the possibility of a potential future claim by your son?


----------



## Jim Jonews

Complainer says “Presumably, the solicitor wants to get out because she too believes the claim will be unsuccessful”.
This claim was the solicitors idea so, no, she doesn’t believe it will be unsuccessful. The solicitor wants out because I have made a complaint about her taking money of me.
“You are opting to take a claim that you don't think you will win, to cover the possibility of a potential future claim by your son?” That’s the advice that this particular solicitor gave.


----------



## Dachshund

Jim Jonews, 

The Rules of the Circuit Courts are accessible on the Courts website. Please read Order 67 in particular Rule 10 and Rule 16 of that Order.

Rule 16 states that if a procedure is not covered under the Circuit Court Rules then the Rules of the Superior Courts apply. 

All the information you seek is readily available online.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks for the help, Dachshund.


----------



## Bronte

Yes thank you Dachshund.


----------



## Jim Jonews

Order 67 rule 10. A party suing or defending by a Solicitor shall be at liberty to change his Solicitor, or to discharge his Solicitor and sue or defend in person, and any party suing or defending in person shall be at liberty to appoint a Solicitor without an order for the purpose. Notice of such change, discharge or appointment shall be filed in the Office, and served on the opposite party, or his Solicitor (if any), and on the Solicitor discharged.

This indicates that a client may change a solicitor or sue in person but it does not cover the circumstances outlined in my op.

I want to know, as asked in my OP, Can she come off record or is she obliged to continue her representation?

I don’t want any “opinions” on this and don’t believe my reasons are actually necessary. I just want to know if a solicitor can, legally, stop representing a client against the clients wishes and if so, where are the regulations governing her withdrawal from this case?


----------



## Dachshund

MOB said:


> I am very sorry indeed for the delay in dealing with the original request.  I confirm that the relevant rules and regulations depend upon the court.   For example, in the High Court this is governed by Order 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which states in the relevant part:
> 
> "3. (1) Where a solicitor who has acted for a party in any proceedings has died or become bankrupt or cannot be found or has failed to take out a practising certificate or has been struck off the roll of solicitors *or has ceased to act for the party,* and the party has not given notice of change of solicitor or notice of intention to act in person in accordance with the provisions of rule 2, any other party to the proceedings *or (where the solicitor has ceased to act) the solicitor may*, on notice to be served on the first-mentioned party, personally, or by letter addressed to his last-known place of residence, unless the Court otherwise directs, *apply to the Court for an order declaring that the solicitor has ceased to be the solicitor acting for the first-mentioned party in the proceedings, and the Court may make an order accordingly*."



As MOB's post from the Rules of the Superior Courts states above (the parts highlighted in bold) once your solicitor has informed you that she no longer wishes to act for you she can inform the court by Notice Of Motion and Affidavit that she is no longer acting for you.

There is a Supreme Court case on this matter Sean O'Fearail v. Colm McManus [1994] 2 ILRM 81 in which the Supreme Court held that:

"The relevant rule obviously gives the courts a wide discretion. It is contained in _O. 7, r. 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 _ and it gives a solicitor on record the entitlement to apply to the court for an order declaring that the solicitor has ceased to be the solicitor acting for the relevant party to the proceedings and the court may order accordingly.

...I think in those circumstances it would be a forced form of liaison to say to Mr O'Brien that he should continue to act for this defendant".

The Supreme Court has decided that you cannot force a solicitor to act for you once they have informed you that they will not act for you.


----------



## mf1

"I don’t want any “opinions” on this and don’t believe my reasons are actually necessary. I just want to know if a solicitor can, legally, stop representing a client against the clients wishes and if so, where are the regulations governing her withdrawal from this case?"

You do know that this is a discussion board? Its not a professional service where you pay up and make demands. And that making demands about what you want or do not want is unlikely to get you anywhere? 

But for what it is worth. She can stop representing you. If you don't agree to that ( and God knows why on earth you think this person should continue to act for you/your son! given everything you have said so far - which may very well be trolling) you cannot compel her to act for you/your son. You should get another  solicitor (although at this stage given that all the solicitors  you've used so far have been so difficult I suspect no-one would touch you with a bargepole). If you want to make as much trouble for this solicitor as you possibly can , you should advise her that you know your rights, that you've been advised  by the experts on Askaboutmoney and that you know she cannot stop representing your son , if you don't agree to it, and that it would be negligence on her part if she simply stopped and allowed the file to gather dust and that you insist that she represent  your son and that if  she won't, that you insist that she should make a formal application to the Court requesting the Court's permission to cease to act. Notice of this should be served on you and you can then attend Court and explain to the Court all the reasons why , notwithstanding that this solicitor stole from you that you want her to represent your son. 

I have no doubt but that   the Court will have the height of sympathy for the solicitor and allow her to stop representing your son. 

But why don't you run the case yourself then? 


mf


----------



## Jim Jonews

Thanks for the clarification, Dachshund,


----------

