"Its a dog eat dog world", (so said a cousin of mine)

grahamg said:
I've dreamt up what I believe is a good line to use against this young lawyer, (its so "good/cheeky" I'm not sure I dare use it?):

Quote: "You appear to hear things I don't believe I'm saying, maybe this is the cause of all the trouble"? :)
Click to expand...
Mine would be something along the lines of "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. I know I don't like myself most of the time." :cool:
 

RFW said:
Mine would be something along the lines of "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. I know I don't like myself most of the time." :cool:
Click to expand...
I've had a reply from the senior lawyer, but decided to sleep on it before reading most of it, but I'm guessing there is little or no distancing themselves from the actions of the younger one as I'd hoped.
A meeting, face to face for the first time is planned, (we havent met due to Covid regs originally let's say, though I met two others from the same firm I liked very much, hence I joined them).

I've suggested meeting the senior lawyer alone, (or if they don't like that idea I will suggest maybe in the company of another lawyer, or individual carrying responsibility at the firm).

"You suggestion above or the odds of my using it let's say, have shortened somewhat", (though in all fairness I haven't had the patience to read this two and a half page email/letter it took the senior lawyer over half the day they were back at work to come up with, as I've said! :( ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFW
grahamg said:
I've had a reply from the senior lawyer, but decided to sleep on it before reading most of it, but I'm guessing there is little or no distancing themselves from the actions of the younger one as I'd hoped.
A meeting, face to face for the first time is planned, (we havent met due to Covid regs originally let's say, though I met two others from the same firm I liked very much, hence I joined them).

I've suggested meeting the senior lawyer alone, (or if they don't like that idea I will suggest maybe in the company of another lawyer, or individual carrying responsibility at the firm).

"You suggestion above or the odds of my using it let's say, have shortened somewhat", (though in all fairness I haven't had the patience to read this two and a half page email/letter it took the senior lawyer over half the day they were back at work to come up with, as I've said! :( ).
Click to expand...
That's a shame. Fingers crossed that it goes your way. They're supposed to be working for you, not against you, and they should know that.
 
RFW said:
That's a shame. Fingers crossed that it goes your way. They're supposed to be working for you, not against you, and they should know that.
Click to expand...
As you're no doubt aware they're prepared to tell me my interests are their first priority, whilst in the case of the young lawyer, lying to me fairly baldly I believe, (and could maybe prove well enough, if it were worth the effort).
This is as they claimed that they had refashioned a very large PDF document, taking out a section I had specifically told them should be kept in reserve, and used only as a source of information etc., the trouble being the 130 page document had what looked like hand stamped numbers on each page.

I doubt very much whether they had had time to print a copy of the whole thing, take out twenty pages that shouldn't have been in there, then stamp number every page in a now 110 page document, rescan this and send it off, (not very likely is it, especially when I've asked for a copy of the supposedly newly formulated and numbered document and haven't received one!)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: RFW
Quick update!

I'm trying to "box clever" so far as my experienced lawyer goes, and only respond in a very piecemeal fashion to a couple of emails sent to me, (one I've only scanned the start of after I printed it off last night, and didn't like the length of it, or way it began too much, and the second one sent today I have even opened, and wont do until I've had chance to deal with more of the first one I'm yet to even open.

My thinking in all this is that unless I get it off my chest concerning my feelings about being misrepresented by the young lawyer, I'll soon be banjaxed by whatever justifications are being out forward for doing so! :oops::cautious::censored::sneaky:o_O
 
grahamg said:
Quick update!

I'm trying to "box clever" so far as my experienced lawyer goes, and only respond in a very piecemeal fashion to a couple of emails sent to me, (one I've only scanned the start of after I printed it off last night, and didn't like the length of it, or way it began too much, and the second one sent today I have even opened, and wont do until I've had chance to deal with more of the first one I'm yet to even open.

My thinking in all this is that unless I get it off my chest concerning my feelings about being misrepresented by the young lawyer, I'll soon be banjaxed by whatever justifications are being out forward for doing so! :oops::cautious::censored::sneaky:o_O
Click to expand...
You're in a tough position there. I can only hope it's not going to get any worse.
 
RFW said:
You're in a tough position there. I can only hope it's not going to get any worse.
Click to expand...
"The charge sheet"!

In the past six months the following has happened:
1). Failure to follow simple instructions as to what was required by the client.
2). Condemnation of the work of a experienced former lawyer, now judge, on behalf of the client, by the youngest lawyer in your practise.
3), Criticism of every aspect of three reports produced by a medical expert and trained lawyer instructed by the client directly.
4).Obtaining a copy of some work carried out by a former lawyer of the client behind his back when told would be shared with you by him.
5). Not revealing you had obtained this document until forced to do so, nor who you obtained it from, nor when it was obtained.
6). As a result of obtaining this document, and way it was obtained, possibly having unauthorised call to former lawyer, raised suspicions
7). Including this document in your instructions when specifically told not to, adding to costs, and confusion, showing lack of trust in client.
8). Undermining the trust of other professionals in the word of the client.
9). Trying to defend above actions, thus adding to costs, and causing unnecessary stress to client, and delaying the real issues to deal with.
10). Trying to assert all the above is the responsibility of the client when it comes to the payment of the latest invoice for work you say is carried out in his interests.

Do you think they or their superiors will like reading this, as I come to pay them their money?
 
  • Angry
Reactions: RFW
grahamg said:
"The charge sheet"!

In the past six months the following has happened:
1). Failure to follow simple instructions as to what was required by the client.
2). Condemnation of the work of a experienced former lawyer, now judge, on behalf of the client, by the youngest lawyer in your practise.
3), Criticism of every aspect of three reports produced by a medical expert and trained lawyer instructed by the client directly.
4).Obtaining a copy of some work carried out by a former lawyer of the client behind his back when told would be shared with you by him.
5). Not revealing you had obtained this document until forced to do so, nor who you obtained it from, nor when it was obtained.
6). As a result of obtaining this document, and way it was obtained, possibly having unauthorised call to former lawyer, raised suspicions
7). Including this document in your instructions when specifically told not to, adding to costs, and confusion, showing lack of trust in client.
8). Undermining the trust of other professionals in the word of the client.
9). Trying to defend above actions, thus adding to costs, and causing unnecessary stress to client, and delaying the real issues to deal with.
10). Trying to assert all the above is the responsibility of the client when it comes to the payment of the latest invoice for work you say is carried out in his interests.

Do you think they or their superiors will like reading this, as I come to pay them their money?
Click to expand...
Is it too late to dump them? ☹️
 
RFW said:
Is it too late to dump them? ☹️
Click to expand...
Not only too late but you wont believe it I know given the above charge sheet, the senior lawyer I spoke about having to perhaps distance themself from the younger one did so in the sense they allowed the majority of our meeting to be between the two of us, and I could not have been more impressed with her in every way!!!!!!!!!! :giggle:(y):D
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFW
I've got an update on the issues I'm having with my lawyers, (bit complicated as usual, so I'll come back to try to explain, and for obvious reasons you'll see I'm far from "out of the woods" with them!).:):(
 
grahamg said:
I've got an update on the issues I'm having with my lawyers, (bit complicated as usual, so I'll come back to try to explain, and for obvious reasons you'll see I'm far from "out of the woods" with them!).:):(
Click to expand...
Okay, the halo I thought I'd perceived over the head of the senior lawyer has maybe slipped a bit in my estimation!
The thought has occurred to me that the "going behind my back to seek a copy of a document from my former lawyers, (a document I was due to send to them a few days later in any event, and before anyone had committed themselves "irretrievably "), may have been carried out with the senior lawyers approval. The repercussions flowing from them accessing the document early, were then perhaps entirely by design, and the two lawyers hoped/expected I wouldn't discover any of what went on!

That just one aspect of a complex case, where sorting out by lawyers intending to be truthful, and open with me all along the line would seem essential! :(
 
Quote:
"'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive'"
("means that when you lie or act dishonestly you are initiating problems and a domino structure of complications which eventually run out of control. The quote is from Scott's epic poem, Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field").

 
grahamg said:
Okay, the halo I thought I'd perceived over the head of the senior lawyer has maybe slipped a bit in my estimation!
The thought has occurred to me that the "going behind my back to seek a copy of a document from my former lawyers, (a document I was due to send to them a few days later in any event, and before anyone had committed themselves "irretrievably "), may have been carried out with the senior lawyers approval. The repercussions flowing from them accessing the document early, were then perhaps entirely by design, and the two lawyers hoped/expected I wouldn't discover any of what went on!

That just one aspect of a complex case, where sorting out by lawyers intending to be truthful, and open with me all along the line would seem essential! :(
Click to expand...
Just wanted to throw in a word that has popped into my head concerning the obtaining of documents from my former solicitors behind my back,....., subterfuge! :)
(good word that, meaning "deceit used to achieve ones goal", or "an action taken to hide something from someone"!)
 
grahamg said:
Just wanted to throw in a word that has popped into my head concerning the obtaining of documents from my former solicitors behind my back,....., subterfuge! :)
(good word that, meaning "deceit used to achieve ones goal", or "an action taken to hide something from someone"!)
Click to expand...
Subterfuge? What I don't understand about this whole issue is what your solicitors had to gain by behaving in a way which was detrimental to their own client?
 
Trish said:
Subterfuge? What I don't understand about this whole issue is what your solicitors had to gain by behaving in a way which was detrimental to their own client?
Click to expand...
What do you think their main priorities in life might be, my interests, or their own reputations if they do as I ask and the case fails, and I'm told the strongest any leading counsel will assert as being the chances of success in any case, no matter how strong it looks on paper is about 75%:25% (surely better for them to make a complete hash of everything then leave you with a big bill!)?
 
grahamg said:
What do you think their main priorities in life might be, my interests, or their own reputations if they do as I ask and the case fails, and I'm told the strongest any leading counsel will assert as being the chances of success in any case, no matter how strong it looks on paper is about 75%:25% (surely better for them to make a complete hash of everything then leave you with a big bill!)?
Click to expand...
No idea but I was thinking when they took your case, why would they knowingly do something against their own client's interest? I am not suggesting that they haven't btw, just curious as to why they would?
 
Trish said:
No idea but I was thinking when they took your case, why would they knowingly do something against their own client's interest? I am not suggesting that they haven't btw, just curious as to why they would?
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but the "deliberately doing something against my interests is slightly over stating it, (not that I don't think the whole episode isn't exactly that with few redeeming features.

It's a combination of "cock *ps", total misunderstandings, feeling they're superior and you (/the client), "cos you is an idiot", then there is the possibility this business going behind my back thingy, and then presenting former lawyers work along with their own as evidence to be used in preparation for going to court, all utterly against my instructions, (as I keep repeating), mix that lot together and then tell me how anyone could expect a good outcome!
 
On to meet potential lawyer number six today, (costing me £250 just to hear his "general advice", and no commitment to take me on as a client should I wish him to!).

Another recent thread tries to focus on negative and positive personalities.

However, can I suggest a need for a new category of professional folks, those you pay to guide you in the law, or legal matters, (where you can't be sure if you're getting the whole truth or not), but won't assert another professional ignoring government rules has done wrong, whilst at the same time, "ever so, ever so careful", to make sure they warn you about trying to put forward arguments and evidence in your favour a judge or senior lawyer may not accept!

Hence they're both positive and negative at one and the same time, "Neutral" you could say, (or don't care if you make progress, and rather like sitting on the fence before being stirred into "positive action"!). :(
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top