[Closed] Going to Court... Any Advice?

[s]why haven't you got a lawyer?[/s]
why haven't you taken legal advice?

sounds like they're on the back foot .. still, rather you than me..

make sure that you wear clothing which conceals your tattoos..

Can't help you, but good luck. Having seen what my ol' man's going through with utterly shit solicitors I hope you win and win good.

It's difficult being a litigant in person.

Maybe go along the day before and sit in on other proceedings so you understand a bit about what goes on?

why haven't you taken legal advice?

It's small claims track. I've spoken to my property solicitor informally, but the claim is for about £1600... It would cost more to employ a solicitor to act on my behalf...

Get another lawyer? May not be what you want to hear but there is a chance you will be eaten alive!

Keep all corresponding. Think carefully before replying. Have you tried any other means of dispute resolution? Ombudsman etc. Normally the first place to go.

Have you complained to the (can't recall the name but lawyers association) as this is the normal thing with a dispute. What was the results of your complaint to them?

If you have simply refused payment and not been willing to sort it out they may have a case that you have been difficult.

(sorry it's not very positive but would consult some legal advice or at least the CAB)

I've been a couple of times. Its all pretty informal.

Sounds obvious, but be honest, tell the truth, be prepared for cross examination on anything you say, and sound as much as possible like you are reasonable person looking for a reasonable solution and you'll be fine.

Don't worry about any intimidation tactics by them, it will almost certainly backfire as the judge will take a very dim view of it.

Mike, I've been to the ombudsman - they won't get involved in negligence claims. I've done the court mediation thing as well - they offered to halve the bill, but I wasn't prepared to do that on principal.

Listen to what the judge says. He/she may be sympathetic and cut you some slack as you are pleading your own case. But if it gets tricky the judge will say that you should get proper legal advice. Be prepared to have to put the unpaid fees into an escrow account as the other side will argue that your lack of experience is causing them to expend unnecessary effort and cost.

Obviously, being up against lawyers, there's a danger of them trying to make me look like a clueless muppet, any advice that may avoid this would be greatly appreciated.

They won't try to make you look like one, you'll either be one or you won't. Code of Conduct does not permit solicitors to take advantage of the fact that someone has no legal representation. Judges are well aware of this rule and will enforce if necessary.

If you get a reasonable judge then you might get a bit of breathing space re procedural matters, however good luck if you get a judge who is having a bad day and doesn't like LiP.

[i]they offered to halve the bill, but I wasn't prepared to do that on principal. [/i]

Forget principles, take their offer!

An example:

http://www.****/news/article-2087556/Millionaire-neighbours-Guildford-war-wiggly-path-homes.html

[i]Mr Kennerley is now seeking, as a matter of legal principle, to have his right of way[/i]

Mike, I've been to the ombudsman - they won't get involved in negligence claims. I've done the court mediation thing as well - they offered to halve the bill, but I wasn't prepared to do that on principal.

So long as you have explored other avenues that should look better for you.

BR, it was mediation. I refused the offer so now it goes to court hearing. Worst case scenario is that I have to pay the bill plus costs (a couple of hundred quid). But I think I have a very strong case and they've really put me through the mill, so I'm going to fight it.

Just knowing the amount of hassle it is for them to bring this case gives me quite a lot of satisfaction, and whilst I may be ordered to pay something, I'm pretty sure I won't be ordered to pay everything as they really f****d up...

After coming a cropper in court due to the wording of a question*, I would say first and foremost make sure that EVERYONE present uses clear language, question anything you don't understand, and make sure others understand EXACTLY what you mean when you say something. County court is based on probabilities, and if you're still trying to work out what the defendent has said when it's your turn you'll get torn apart.
Secondly, go early and ask if there are any solicitors there doing some [i]pro bono[/i] work. My friend was going to represent himself (in the same case as I was involved in) and ended up with a solicitor with an hour to spare doing the legwork for him out of the goodness of his heart.

*I was asked, "[i]Are[/i] you aware (present tense) that you could have done x instead of y?"
Given that I was arrested and in court for "y" and had about 6 weeks to reflect on my actions, I answered "yes". The magistrates took this to mean that I was aware at the time of doing "y" that I could have done "x", which was not the case. My solicitor tells me that is when my previously strong case fell apart at the seams.

If this makes me seem like part of the criminal underclass, let me just say that "y", the thing I was arrested for, was what I had been told to do by a police officer. "X" would have been refusing to do what the police officer asked. Given it was my first ever encounter with the police, I thought it better to do what I was told. I'll never make that mistake again.

Remember to point out how much of a hassle it was for you too.

When i went, the CAB was almost completely useless, requiring a day off work due to waiting times and offered no more help than the advice you can get on the 'net. Legal Advice would easily have cost more than the claim.

I'm sure you know this but... are you able to demonstrate clearly how their mistake cost you money and how much?

Higgo, it's difficult to quantify, but I intend on spending this week working out how much billable work was "undone" by the negligence.

I also intend to build a file of my own hours, and how much time it took me from doing billable work in my own commercial capacity.

And I intend to demonstrate the addition stress I was put under...

I've watched Judge Judy.

Take lots of paperwork and evidence to back up anything you claim.

if you can indeed prove they messed up then I wouldn't worry about it.

oh, and good luck, nail the lying, cheating, money-grabbing bastards*
.
.
.
.
*other opinions are available, but not many.

Thanks Cheez0, I fully intend to! 😀

i have a lot of experience as a LIB, but only in family court, to get access to my children. in my experience, the judge has given me lots of leeway on procedure, make sure you've got your evidence filed beforehand, stick to your case, and be clear about what you want. its a bit daunting, but its fine, don't worry, i find a couple of minutes of deep breathing before i go in helps. get them, there's no excuse for negligence in legal cases. good luck

the CAB was almost completely useless, requiring a day off work due to waiting times and offered no more help than the advice you can get on the 'net.

Litigation and the rules around it are a nightmare.

Not least because you only have 14 days to submit your defence. [url= http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15#IDAQSHCC ]Linky to relevant bit of CPR. [/url]

You seem to have 2 things going on:

1. Defence to their claim against you for an unpaid debt

2. A counterclaim against them in negligence for your losses (leading you not to pay the debt).

You can rely on point 2 as your defence, or you could go to the court and ask them how you submit a counterclaim for your losses (which may or may not be greater than the £1600 you have effectively set off).

I know you probably don't trust lawyers now, but if you consider your negligence claim to be reasonably robust (as you see it), then separate legal advice may be better in the long run.

Good luck.

But surely for such a small sum it wouldn't be worth getting proper legal advice. And after being stuffed once, does he want to spend more money with another legal professional anyway?

Hope it goes well for you - whether or not you win, it is good to stand up for what you believe to be true and not be intimidated by the fact they are lawyers themselves.

And also bask in the warm glow of the time and effort this will have cost them anyway 🙂

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

Good luck, stay calm, be clear and ask for clarity on anything until you are entirely clear on the question/response.

Good on you mate.
This has obviously annoyed you - maybe an understatement.
My advice would be to keep emotions out of it.
Keep 100% to the facts, with no unquantified opinions...
A crazed rant about how useless your ex lawyer was/or is will not go down too well..
🙂

Ive seen many people defend themselves in court
From my experiences
Be reasonable in putting you case forward, dont start slagging off the solicitors, present your case in an balanced way, and let the court decide.
If the prosecution start using court lingo, politely tell the judge you don't nderstand.
Don't pretend you are a solicitor, you are not, and the court will,help you through the process if you let them.

If you present your case in a reasonable CALM manner, the court will help you out, and solicitors will not like it.
If you start getting arsey, the solicitor will tear you apart, and you will lose

I'll give you 3 tips

Keep calm
Keep calm
Present the evidence and only the evidence
Good luck

Thanks for the advice... I'm getting the message that I need to keep calm? 🙂

OMITN, I'm glad you dropped in as your advice at the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/mediation ]mediation process[/url] was very helpful.

I've just replied to their recent letter declining their kind offer to withdraw my defence. I also reminded them that my desire to have the case decided by a county court judge was not "unreasonable conduct" and that I reserved the right to refer to their letter as evidence of their attempt to intimate me. Grrrrr.

Trying to imagine possible scenarios of how the case could develop, and then how you would respond to these is the obvious advice.
What will the line of targeting be on you.
How exactly will you respond to questions on a,b,c, etc..
What do you think the opposition is trying to achieve ??

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

Dealt with many?

Dealt with many?

At least 100 it would seem 🙂

It's the typical scenario where someone looks around for the cheapest high st lawyer they can find, doesn't get what they wanted and then blames all lawyers. Or their only encounter with lawyers is when they get screwed over by their ex wife, or from watching PI claims adverts on the telly.

I would be surprised if a non-lawyer could identify 99% of practise areas where the majority of the legal profession actually practise. I certainly still have to google some of my colleague's practise areas ha ha!

I reserved the right to refer to their letter as evidence of their attempt to intimate me

A "drop hands" proposal isn't unusual. I've got one on now, and we've said no as well.

I suspect their letter has somewhere at the top of it "without prejudice" or similar. Note that WP correspondence is generally not admissible to court.

But, since you're a LiP, you could show it to the judge and ask him/her to help you out in determining what can and cannot be included as evidence.

Sounds a nightmare. Good luck.

ive dealt with 100s of lawyers, barristers
dont think they are bad people generally, but morally i would question them
they will chat quite happily with you outside court, but when they get you in the box, they will try and totally dismantle your intergrity without a second thought.
afterwards they will chat with you agian as if nothing has happened.
in my experience most lawyers are driven by money

ive dealt with 100s of lawyers, barristers
dont think they are bad people generally, but morally i would question them
they will chat quite happily with you outside court, but when they get you in the box, they will try and totally dismantle your intergrity without a second thought.
afterwards they will chat with you agian as if nothing has happened.
in my experience most lawyers are driven by money

You've dealt with 100's of litigators. That's only a small part of the legal profession, and one which, due to the nature of the work, is often confrontational and driven by a win/lose scenario, where the losing party is obviously going to feel aggrieved.

Most legal work isn't like that. Litigation is for when things go wrong. Most things don't end up being the subject of litigation.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that the integrity of all litigants/defendants/witnesses is 100% intact or should not be subject to being examined by the court, paricularly where the integrity of the providing evidence is linked to the integrity of the evidence they are providing to the court?

Litigants/defendants and witnesses lie just as much as lawyers do

Yep, individually theyre alright but they can be a right pita when you get 2 in a room. I did forget my smiley though.

Standards are slipping around here....

[img] [/img]

2nd page and not a mention!

in my experience most lawyers are driven by money

Biased here, as my dad's a lawyer, although he's a solicitor in public employment, not a barrister, and he's certainly not driven by money. Much to my mum's disgust at times 🙂

Personal experience suggests that they're not all like that in Spain, either. We spoke to a couple of lawyers when my wife had an accident, the first was the stereotypical fast-talking sleazy lawyer type, the second was a lot calmer and a pleasure to deal with.

Oh, and good luck Shibboleth - has anyone mentioned the most important thing is to keep calm? 🙂

Jerome, it's quite a complicated case. Negotiations had reached a point where I kept ownership of my rental portfolio that I'd had when I entered into the marriage and my wife kept the former marital home. I would also keep my current business premises that I'd acquire during the marriage.

I just needed to demonstrate that I could refinance that property in my sole name and we could go our separate ways. The existing lender said they would remortgage it in my sole name and sent an offer letter, but my financial adviser warned me that this would impede my ability to buy a house on my own and advised me to restructure some business loans to include the business premises, therefore giving me a higher personal borrowing potential.

I discussed this in detail with my solicitor and asked him to advise the opposition what I planned. He wrote asking if he could show them the letter from the existing lender, and I emailed him back to say yes. They had a system failure and lost that email (it was at the beginning of Jan 2010). I was of the belief that they had carried out my instructions and I was waiting to hear back (this often takes weeks and weeks). Nearly 12 weeks later, my solicitor's colleague, chasing up loose ends while he was skiing, rang to ask why I'd not responded.

I re-forwarded the email with express instructions that they apologise for losing my email and to carry out the instructions.

By July that year, my ex-wife's solicitors had withdrawn the proposed consent order and attempted to put my business premises on the market because I was "obviously unable to secure finance" - that couldn't have been further from the truth, but over 6 months after asking me, he still hadn't shown them the letter that proved finance was available, or explained what I planned to do.

At that point, I sacked him and renegotiated the entire consent order from scratch. They'd smelt blood and tried to force me to sell the property and halve the equity which would have resulted in me loosing around £45,000.

Phew, and that's just the potted version!!! Basically, he wants me to pay the final bill, I'm saying I won't due to the hassle it caused me and the fact that we basically rewound to the beginning of all the negotiations, but with an impatient opposition!

dont think they are bad people generally, but morally i would question them

Eh? They're not bad people, but are questionable morally?

they will chat quite happily with you outside court, but when they get you in the box, they will try and totally dismantle your intergrity without a second thought.
afterwards they will chat with you agian as if nothing has happened.

You're describing the nature of criminal advocacy. All criminal work goes to the heart of a person's integrity. If the defendant is having his/her integrity scrutinised, isn't it right that everyone else in the witness box undergoes the same?

It's a job. In the same way coppers get drunk on a Friday night, but then arrest drink drivers on a Monday morning.

And peterfile's right - the ones you describe are a narrow segment of the legal world.

I suspect their letter has somewhere at the top of it "without prejudice" or similar. Note that WP correspondence is generally not admissible to court.

They didn't put that on their letter. How can I introduce it into the proceedings? Would you suggest I ask the judge if insisting on a hearing is "unreasonable"?

Your argument of negligence seems quite clear.
I guess it comes down to how the action of the lawyer is viewed in the eyes of the law.
Good luck
J.

Hi Shibboleth, sounds like a bit of a pain in the bum, hope your hearing goes ok

"they will chat quite happily with you outside court, but when they get you in the box, they will try and totally dismantle your intergrity without a second thought.
afterwards they will chat with you agian as if nothing has happened."
surgeons are like that too happily chat away nice as pie then in theatre they stick a knife in you.

Shibboleth good luck, from what you say they sent you correspondence you replied (proof needed copy sent email) they did not get your reply and waited for it but otherwise did nothing. This should have been identified by file reviews and diary dates a lot earlier .

even poor firms have office procedures to one maintain diary dates so outstanding queries are chased and a long stop to identify files where no action is happening . The failure to have or operate this system is where their fault lies .

I have no legal expertise to offer you, but I hate solicitors so good luck.

Again, thanks for all the good luck wishes! It seems a lot of people have had bad experiences, but I have to agree with others that there are some bloody good ones too. I was just very unlucky to get a bad one for my divorce!

Crankboy, correct: I'm saying they should have chased me up if they thought I hadn't replied - it was after all, the culmination of 18 months of wrangling. And secondly, even when I forwarded the email again on 3rd March, they failed to send them the letter!

But... I... MUST... REMAIN... CALM... 😉

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-18952102 ]This wasn't you was it Shibboleth?[/url]

crankboy raises a good point - if you can show historically you had always replied promptly then again alarm bells shoudl have rung if they'd heard nothing.

If they didn't chase then they're not showign due dilligence.

I can prove that they chased up previous correspondence within 5 days in the past. I've also been advised by a former employee that they use a system called Proclaim, a case management package which they use to keep on top of this kind of thing.

Either way, it flies in the face of their client care letter in which they said “The firm aims to offer all of our client’s (sic) efficient and effective service and I am confident that we will do so in this case”.

Such shoddy use of apostrophes should have set my alarm bells ringing...

well....?

Any news?

lol another man gets taken to the cleaners by a woman, good good!!

Don't try and bribe the Judge

OP I've defended a couple of claims by Party [s]Lunatics[/s] Litigants.

Up here Sheriffs treat them pretty well. Sadly many claims are based on "it's no' fair" or just get personal/insulting or ranting.

It seems you have a claim and have worked out what it is so you are off to good start. Court costs rise quickly tho so best to neg a deal ASAP and walk away.

silver1999 - Member
lol another man gets taken to the cleaners by a woman, good good!!

I thought you were flouncing off and never coming back here? Starting to regret it already?

 

Didn't take long for Shibby to hack you off silver1999, usually it takes a bit longer. Must be some kind of record.

Silver1999 "I'm a lady"

[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-TQ_yM4qfSu6WrTNcknnsSwm9EQtVKrPwezay4OsmADJpN3bpvw [/img]

I don't remember ever hacking Silver off... You're not my ex-wife are you??

Cheez0, hearing is on Friday morning but not heard any more from the opposition yet. Had an informal chat with my property lawyer last night, she said their "drop hands" letter is perfectly standard, and they've done it so that "if" I lose, they can say to the judge that I ignored their legal advice and continued to go to court. If I "was" to lose, then that could be deemed unreasonable in comparison to their lovely, thoughtful and public spirited behaviour.

I'm 100% confident that they ballsed up, and I'm 100% confident that I can present my case in such a way that no judge would say I'm liable for all of the bill owed. I think it's just a matter of letting them decide.

Fingers crossed I get a judge that has a grudge against sharks in pin-striped suits giving the whole legal system a bad name...

Update:

Well, attended court on Friday, the firm that was suing me sent a litigator rather than the solicitor that had screwed up. He asked if I was prepared to settle rather than going into the court, I told him I had a strong defence and was prepared to let a judge decide the outcome.

Then he produced a list of their costs in preparing their case - basically a cost schedule for 2 solicitors, so just short of £2 grand's worth of work - and told me they'd be pushing for full costs. I said "erm... this is small claims track isn't it? You're only entitled to fixed costs for attending the hearing aren't you? So shall we pop this in this wastepaper basket where it belongs?" The look on his face was priceless!

Waited for 2hrs and then the judge called everyone waiting into the courtroom. He said that due to a particularly busy schedule, most cases would be adjourned but we'd probably have to wait all day to find out.

So, the litigator goes and makes some phonecalls, comes back to me and says they'd settle for half the bill. I told him no, and explained that the most I had to lose was a couple of grand, but if judgement went in my favour, I'd be instructing a solicitor to sue them for professional negligence, so his firm had potentially a lot more to lose than me.

I explained that I would rather not lose another day's pay to attend court again, so I'd make a contribution of £200 towards the court costs, dispersments etc, but it was to go on record that it was towards costs and not the invoices.

He pulled his face and told me it was an "unattractive offer", but I told him that to pay any more would be contributing to the invoiced totals, and I wasn't prepared to do that on principal.

He accepted and drew up a consent order there and then. So, I got the afternoon off to drive down to Surrey to watch the Olympic road race!

I think it was a moral victory of sorts, all I was fighting for was for the "debt" to be written off, but another day in court would have resulted in another day's lost earnings.

Only problem I now face is that in my mind, I have a couple of extra grand in the bike fund pot!!!

Thanks again for all the advice, it wasn't half as daunting as I thought.

😀

Good result, well except for the road race that is.

Well played, good sir. Well played indeed.

Well done - good result!
Honest reasoning defeats the usual litigator's confidence - as you noted, they had a lot more to lose if the Tribunal took your side fully; £200 allows a small degree of face-saving (but not the costs of the day).

(ex-lawyer - saw the light)

well done!

Cheers, I'm glad I took the pragmatic approach - it could have gone either way in a hearing because no matter how morally "right" I was, there's always the issue that the judge will have been a former solicitor or barrister and might have a grudge against people contesting fees.

I told the litigator that my principals wouldn't allow me to increase my offer as it would make me feel that I was contributing to the invoices. He scoffed and said "Oh pleeeeeeease, don't talk about principals..."

I said "well, you're a solicitor, you don't have principals but I'm just an ordinary bloke that's been dicked about by his solicitor!"

That made him laugh and kind of diffused things a little. I left the court with him and walked through the town having a chat and he seemed like a really nice fella, maybe they're not all complete ****s!

And yes, shame about the road race result... But on the flip side, I'm thinking an S-Works SL4 with Dura-Ace would look lovely in my bike cave... 😉

Well done 😉

Good work that sounds like a result.

Just remember that the litigators are just "hired guns". I used to travel back to town from the County Courts chatting with the opposing Counsel with whom I'd been snarling/mocking/arguing 10 minutes earlier.

As an SL3 owner, deffo go with your plan...

Congrats - good result there!

They'll play hardball, just like you did. But in the end, they are just human and respect a bit of banter/barter.

"result in your favour, stand on the moral high ground and take a bow"

He said I was very brave to take on a law firm, and actually said he thought I handled things very well. But I'll never know how confident he was - I suspect he must have known it really could have gone either way.

He did suggest I should try and stay out of the courts in future, I suggested that it might be better for me to stay out of churches... 😀

Great result.

An excellent result indeed! Chapeau! 😀

hats off to you, sir, i've been following this thread, it seems that you deserve a new bike....or drugs and hookers 🙂

I think I'll stick with the new bike plan... It was women that got me into this mess, and drugs don't agree with me. 😉

Great result 🙂

He said I was very brave to take on a law firm, and actually said he thought I handled things very well. But I'll never know how confident he was - I suspect he must have known it really could have gone either way.

They clearly didn't have a leg to stand on. If they thought they had a glimmer of hope you wouldn't have walked away from refusing to paying their bill so easily. It was [i]their[/i] action. I'm not suggesting that you're not an awesome litigator, but if there was any sort of case in there at all, the guy who just settled for £200 would be out of a job by the time he got back to the office.

Did you actually suffer any loss as a result of their negligent services (i'm assuming you must have otherwise the solicitor wouldn't be worried about a neg claim against them)? Presumably you'll still pursue your own action for that loss then?

good result 🙂

Did you actually suffer any loss as a result of their negligent services (i'm assuming you must have otherwise the solicitor wouldn't be worried about a neg claim against them)? Presumably you'll still pursue your own action for that loss then?

I argued that the divorce dragged on for 6 months after it should have been settled and that all negotiations after the initial Form E's etc was rendered useless because I was forced to renegotiate in person.

He said I would be asked by the judge to quantify my losses (which I knew), so I listed the time I'd had to spend researching and corresponding with the opposition, my lost earnings, and said I hoped the judge would decide how much of the monies already spent should be brought into question (about £10 grand)...

The crux of their argument was that as I'd managed to achieve pretty much the same outcome as originally proposed, I'd not actually lost out. My argument was that I could have saved a shedload of money if I'd done it myself from the outset!