Elderly Man 'talked into' signing documents by solicitor

D

delgirl

Registered User
Messages
1,322
A friend of mine (2nd son) was asked by his elderly father (80+) to accompany him to the solicitor's office as he wished to change his will.

The father called the solicitor to make the appointment and stated that he wished his 2nd son to be present. This solicitor is the 'family business' solicitor and has acted for the family for a number of years, but mainly acts on behalf of the 1st son of the family who is the major shareholder in the business.

On arrival at the office, the 2nd son was asked to leave, against the wishes of the father, and the solicitor explained that should there be any dispute and/or subsequent court action regarding the validity of the will, he, the solicitor, would have to be in a position to testify that the father changed his will of his own volition and was not coerced into doing so.

The 2nd son left the office and the father was there alone for 2 hours with the solicitor and was advised not to change his will. He was also asked to sign documents relating to the family business, which he had in previous weeks refused to sign numerous times as they put the family business and his own home, which is being offered to the bank as security by the 1st son, in jeopardy.

When the father left the office, he told his 2nd son that the solicitor didn't want him to change his will and 'talked him into' signing the documents relating to the bank loan for the family business, which he didn't want to sign.

Is there anything the 2nd son can do in this situation? The father is so stressed by the whole debacle that he is becoming unwell. The father is afraid to involve another independent solicitor in case this might lead to court action and the problems within the family business will become public knowledge.

The bottom line is he made an appointment with the family solicitor to change his will and came away having signed a document for a loan that he had refused to sign many times in previous weeks and not having changed his will.

Is there any sort of cooling off period with regard to signing something like this or can he now put it in writing to the solicitor that he felt under pressure and would like to withdraw his signature?
 

Can't comment on the rest of your note but I know when myself and my wife went into finalise our (separate) wills, we were asked to leave the room while the other signed theirs.

While there on my own she (the solicitor) said this was to ensure that there could be no implication of coercion in later years if anything was to arise. Then she reaffirmed with me was I happy with the will etc.
 
If he goes to a different solicitor he can simply amend his will again, but I'm not so sure about the documents he signed relating to the bank. On the face of it there may be a case for arguing duress, but I wouldn't be hopeful.

You're up against two of the most powerful, unscrupulous and unaccountable professions out there, and going on my own experience I would expect nothing but ruthless self-interest from both. If you do need to challenge it you'll probably find that other solicitors in the area will be reluctant to take a case against either their paymasters or "one of their own". You would have to prove misconduct and the second son's word will be discounted since he is (presumably?) a beneficiary of the will — and we only have his side of the story.
 
Find out whether the documents have been forwarded to the bank. If not, he can instruct the solicitor to hold them. Failing that, he could contact the bank to find whether the loan has been drawn down. If not, he can cancel the loan.
 
DrMoriarty said:
You're up against two of the most powerful, unscrupulous and unaccountable professions out there,
Click to expand...


Two unscrupulous, unaccountable and powerful professions. Lovely. Presuming one is the legal profession ( though your description is both inaccurate and sweeping in its generalisation), but which is the second profession?

Summary of above: son goes to father's solicitors office with father. Can't go into office while father makes will ( as solicitor using law society recommended best practice) and repeats later what his father wants him to hear. It's a story as old as the hills, heard it many times before, will hear it again. If father really wanted to change, he'd get another solicitor. Son very willing to bring father, father reluctant to go. One wonders why?
 
Where is the truth of what actually happened?

We don't know, we weren't there but both Vanilla and myself ( as part of the unscrupulous, unaccountable and powerful profession) (perhaps just a tiny bit OTT) would have a great deal of experience in sifting through what we are being told, to work out what really happened.

If what we are told happened ( and I have serious reservations that it did) -I might more believe that the 80+ ( who may or may not be totally compos mentis) perhaps regrets what he freely did and rather than say - oops! can I sort this? is trying to hide behind a set of allegations.

If he was "talked into "it, he can undo it very easily. Change the will, pull his authority/signature- the Bank will run very, very fast away from relying on any documents that are now said to have been signed under duress.

As a profession we have strict guidelines for dealing with "vulnerable" clients so, frankly, if what happened was in any way shady, it is easily enough undone.


mf
 
@Cashier- if you read the sentence before the one you quoted- I meant that the father is reluctant to go to a second solicitor, though his son is happy to bring him- why?
 
@Vanilla: yes, I was generalising (and I did make the point that we've only had one side of the story, secondhand at that). I hope no offence was taken at my generalisation — members of my own family work in both professions, and some of my best friends are unscrupulous and unaccountable, if not very powerful, alas.

I agree that where there's a will, there's a family, and that these things are never straightforward. I'd be more concerned at this point about the (unspecified) documents relating to the bank loan, which the OP clearly said the father was pressured into signing against his wishes. I think you'll both grant me that the banking profession, on the whole, has been revealed to be less than the pillars of moral rectitude and propriety that they once held themselves up to be. And I suspect that the "average" solicitor (whatever that is) would be more concerned to maintain a positive relationship with a major bank than with the owners of a family business.
 
Have to agree with all you are saying, I wasn't there either. 2nd son has been a friend for 20+ years and would, IMO, be extremely trustworthy, honest, very generous, not a money grabbing type of person.

1st son is a different kettle of fish altogether and was very lucky that his parents were of 'that generation' who believed that the family business should be passed to the eldest son. The other siblings benefit very little from the family business - they get a small monthly payment, which has been wiped out now by this bank loan document that the father has signed.

So, the 2nd son's only interest was to maintain the monthly payment to which he was entitled under his mother's will, who died some years ago, and under the current wishes of his father.

The father is not happy with what the 1st son is doing with the business and decided, apparently by himself, that he would now like to leave his remaining shares to his 2nd son and siblings equally.

2nd son doesn't care whether he gets the father's shares or not, he is financially stable in his own right.

He is very concerned about the following:-

- that his father's house is being used for a business loan, while 1st son did not use his family home and other properties he owns as security;

- that his father decided without any influence that he wanted to change his will, makes a appointment to do so, spends 2 hours in the family business solicitor's office and comes away with no change to the will and having signed loan documents, which will now put his home at risk and which he had steadfastly refused to sign in the weeks prior to this meeting;

- the reason the father is reluctant to go to another solicitor is, according to 2nd son, that with his father's generation displays a typical loyalty to the 'family business solicitor' and he's also afraid it will end up in court;

It's quite possible that you are correct mf1 and Vanilla, as your experience has obviously shown you, that there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
 
Sounds to me like the solicitor acted correctly. It is proper order that the meeting was only between solicitor and client. I don't see coercion. I see a father torn between children fighting. Father if fully mentally fit has the choice to not sign the documents, but for whatever reason he did. 2nd son should realise that father could be lying to him and OP should realise that his friend may be putting a spin on the story.

Only thing niggling me is the family home as collateral. That doesn't sound right. But solicitor is going to have to stand over the loan documents if there is ever an issue (children contesting validity later). What does the solicitor have to gain by coercing father?

In realtion to the business, it is really difficult to pass a family business to all children equally, it is rare indeed for this to work. So parents had to make a choice and they picked the eldest son to continue the business. If he's done a good job then they chose well, and apparently everybody got some income from it for a period of time. You cannot expect a business to pay out forever. But times are tough so that is probably why the business is struggling. Also did the children who did not inherit get a good education so that they could make their own way in life.

The legal eagles might know the answer to this thought, is it right and proper that a solicitor acts for the business/son and for the father who is signing loan documents for the business/son.

Perhaps 2nd son if he believes the father has been coerced should write a letter to the solicitor with his concerns, by registered post. For the record.
 
DrMoriarty said:
And I suspect that the "average" solicitor (whatever that is) would be more concerned to maintain a positive relationship with a major bank than with the owners of a family business.
Click to expand...

Do you have any particular reasons for this suspicion? It just doesn't make much sense to me. The first loyalty of any professional service practice will be to their customers/clients, as it is they who literally pay their wages. I can't imagine any reason why a solicitor would prioritise their relationship with a bank over their relationship with a client.
 
delgirl said:
- the reason the father is reluctant to go to another solicitor is, according to 2nd son, that with his father's generation displays a typical loyalty to the 'family business solicitor' and he's also afraid it will end up in court;
Click to expand...

If he gets a second opinion, this doesn't mean that the issue will suddenly spiral out of control and end up in court. A good professional advisor will have no difficulty with the concept of a loyal customer getting a second opinion elsewhere.
 
"The legal eagles might know the answer to this thought, is it right and proper that a solicitor acts for the business/son and for the father who is signing loan documents for the business/son."

If ever there was a situation where someone needed independent legal advice, this is it.

The thing I don't get is the father's reluctance to do anything and his apparent "loyalty" to the family business solicitor.

mf
 
When did banking become a profession?

Solicitors act for their client. The Law Society has stipulated that in commercial transactions the bank must have their own solicitor, a private individual must be separately represented. If this solicitor were acting for both the bank and the father that would be entirely wrong and I think it is very unlikely.

If this solicitor was acting for both the first son and the father, and the father was putting up his own house as collateral for a business loan taken out by the son, I think that too is wrong and he would incorrect to do it. If that is what has happened, then the father needs only go to another solicitor or contact the bank and confirm that he has not obtained independent legal representation and any paperwork signed by him wouldnt be worth the paper it is written on. That would be as long as he acts now and doesn't delay.

Every party involved in this story has their own benefit to protect- first son, second son, father and bank. The solicitor is paid to advise, they don't benefit from the advice they give. A solicitor is independent- nobody else in this story is. No solicitor, unless they are acting for the bank, puts the bank first. And if they are acting for the bank, they shouldn't be acting for the client.
 
Hi Tommy,

If a lot of his/her bread-and-butter work is in the area of property transactions, conveyancing, etc. a solicitor may (understandably) be keen to remain in favour with local bank managers who "put work their way". I'd initially suspected that the new papers signed in relation to the business loan might be more favourable to the bank's interests than to the 80-year-old father or his future inheritors. One hand washes the other. The solicitor needn't be formally acting for the bank for this to happen.

From what delgirl has now posted regarding the father's house being used as security for the business loan, "while 1st son did not use his family home and other properties he owns as security", perhaps the mutual hand-washing relationship is of a different nature. I dunno.

I'm just advising caution, and I certainly agree with mf1 that independent legal advice is needed.
 

Sorry, I still don't understand. Banks are in the lending business, not in the property transaction business. I'm not at all sure is it customary for bank managers to refer clients to solicitors - certainly not these days with centralised banking. And any solicitor who puts a bank's interest ahead of their clients', and gets a reputation for so doing, will find their business suffering.
 
Bronte said:
Also did the children who did not inherit get a good education so that they could make their own way in life.
Click to expand...

OP says the 2nd son is financially stable in his own right, so I think he is already making his own way in life. Don't know about the other siblings, but I'd assume they are also?
 
T McGibney said:
I'm not at all sure is it customary for bank managers to refer clients to solicitors - certainly not these days with centralised banking.
Click to expand...
Maybe my experience is untypical, but each of the three times I have remortgaged the lenders have referred me to the same local solicitor, although I found him very inefficient and a PITA to deal with personally. I mentioned it once to a colleague at work and he said he'd had the same experience with two other, different banks. Maybe it's a local thing here in Limerick?
 

Dunno. The last place I'd look for a solicitor recommendation is in a bank. Maybe the PITA thing wasn't a total coincidence
 

Looking back on this story something that doesn't make sense. It's an amazing coincidence that the very day the dad goes to the solicitor to change his will there is another matter to be dealt with, namely the business loan. Which the dad had seemingly refused to sign. Someone is lying here.

OP should also clarify if the solicitor is acting for the father, 1st son and bank. (Thanks MF1 and V for clarifying that)

Wonder is 2nd son putting pressure on father to change his will. For peace sake the father pretended to go along with it and used the solicitor as a shield against that pressure. The fact 2nd son is independantly wealthy means nothing.

The statement that the father doesn't want the problems with the family business aired by a possible court case by him going to another solicitor would lead one to believe that father wants to do all in his power to keep the business going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register