Time to overhaul the law courts?

[Fogey]

1. Didn't Magna Carter provide those rights and justice to land owners only? or something along those lines? And only men? I seem to recall from my visit to Lincoln castle that it's basically a case of rich men being unhappy about paying tax.

 

2. I think the legal system would probably be easier to deal with if it was written in plain english rather than the use of latin and complex phraseology which allows lawyers to try to confuse and muddy the waters with overly complex arguments that most people struggle to get their heads round.

 

3. Are we sure the legal profession doesn't like dressing up?

[L00b]

So are you saying that really we don't need Lawyers - we can do it all ourselves?

In which case, why are we paying them vast sums of money?

No. I don't believe you are obtuse, so I'll not engage your circular non-argument, and invite you instead to reread and understand my posts

 

@ Fogey - admittedly, I do break out the suit & tie for client meetings, so there's a bit of dressing up I suppose. Though I don't do pinstripes, that's just so twee & British. Jeans & T-shirt at all other times, seniority hath its priviledges

[Anna B]

No. I don't believe you are obtuse, so I'll not engage your circular non-argument, and invite you instead to reread and understand my posts

 

(QUOTE]

 

 

Well spotted.

 

Seriously, you seem to know what you're talking about, so can I ask you your opinion on this?

 

True situation that happened to relatives of mine. (Obviously I won't be giving names or too much detail)

 

Anyway; My relative, a self employed small businessman ('A') does contract work for regular Business client ('B'.)

 

Business client ('B') doesn't pay a bill for work done, (perfectly satisfactory work, which cost £15,000,) even after several reminders. So relative has no option but take him to court

He thinks it will be a perfectly straightforward case as he has right on his side.

 

To his surprise 'B' counter sues, (something to do with a technicality in contract making it invalid.) So 'A' has to engage a lawyer.

 

They have their day in court, (a morning actually,) and 'A' wins the case.

'B' still refuses to pay full amount as he says he is going bankrupt so they settle for about half.

 

Then 'A' gets bill for legal fees - £12,000. Now he has incurred losses of almost £20,000. Only way he can pay them is to sell up.

 

Tell me LOOb, does this sound fair to you? Where did he go wrong? I'm asking for a brief but honest opinion, just out of interest. it's the kind of situation that must affect lots of people these days.

[L00b]

Seriously, you seem to know what you're talking about, so can I ask you your opinion on this?

Not really, because I'd need an awful lot more information about the particulars of the case and the information conveyed by A's solicitor to A from the onset, including estimates and case/costs updates.

Tell me LOOb, does this sound fair to you?

'fair' does not come into it. I told you that already.

Where did he go wrong?

Security for costs should have been sought against B, and B's director(s) added to the proceedings as named defendants, the second B threatened to do a phoenix (provided relevant communications were not sent without prejudice, so could be used as evidence to support the security for costs application, besides other evidence, e.g. recent and current financial standing of B).

 

As an alternative, the settlement with B should have considered B paying A's costs/making a significant contribution to A's costs rather than each party bearing their respective costs (which I must assume is what was agreed, from the last part of your post). But settling is essentially a commercial negotiation, it's basically both sides sorting out and agreeing a contract, at that stage the law (other than contract law of course) stays mostly at the door. It would have been up to A and B to agree a position somewhere between what each of them saw as 'just'/'fair'.

 

And that's just musings because -> refer top portion of this post.

[Manlinose]

No. I don't believe you are obtuse, so I'll not engage your circular non-argument, and invite you instead to reread and understand my posts

 

(QUOTE]

 

 

Well spotted.

 

Seriously, you seem to know what you're talking about, so can I ask you your opinion on this?

 

True situation that happened to relatives of mine. (Obviously I won't be giving names or too much detail)

 

Anyway; My relative, a self employed small businessman ('A') does contract work for regular Business client ('B'.)

 

Business client ('B') doesn't pay a bill for work done, (perfectly satisfactory work, which cost £15,000,) even after several reminders. So relative has no option but take him to court

He thinks it will be a perfectly straightforward case as he has right on his side.

 

To his surprise 'B' counter sues, (something to do with a technicality in contract making it invalid.) So 'A' has to engage a lawyer.

 

They have their day in court, (a morning actually,) and 'A' wins the case.

'B' still refuses to pay full amount as he says he is going bankrupt so they settle for about half.

 

Then 'A' gets bill for legal fees - £12,000. Now he has incurred losses of almost £20,000. Only way he can pay them is to sell up.

 

Tell me LOOb, does this sound fair to you? Where did he go wrong? I'm asking for a brief but honest opinion, just out of interest. it's the kind of situation that must affect lots of people these days.

 

without wishing to sound facetious, he "went wrong" by suing someone who apparently didn't have the means to pay the debt

 

it does happen a lot - what is the answer?

try to negotiate stage payments as the work progresses?

carry out a more detailed investigation of the defendant/respondent's ability to pay before commencing proceedings?

negotiate a fixed fee/percentage fee with your lawyer?

 

before commencing proceedings to recover a debt, as big an issue as "will i win?" is, "will i be able to recover my money if i do?"

 

can't your relative negotiate payment terms with his solicitor?

[Anna B]

L00b, Manlinose, thankyou for your time / musings /opinions.

 

Relative sickened by result and very bitter. Client has not gone bankrupt and seems to be thriving which hasn't helped. Relative perhaps could try to recover the money but he won't go near a solicitor again. He's been advised for his health's sake to forget it and move on, so that's what he's trying to do.

 

I think a lot of people will be surprised that 'fair' doesn't come into it L00b, I think they see that as part of justice, but I bow to your greater knowledge.

[Manlinose]

as billy bragg sings, "this isn't a court of justice, son, this is a court of law"

[L00b]

L00b, Manlinose, thankyou for your time / musings /opinions.

And thank you Anna B for dropping the broad brush/stereotypes for a moment

Client has not gone bankrupt and seems to be thriving which hasn't helped.

Expectedly, B did not go bankrupt because the matter was settled (rather than decided upon at Court) and B could afford the settlement. Incidentally (with ref to the OP), the Courts had nothing to do with that (unless a judge had to rubber-stamp the settlement...but then, that's just procedural, not really a "Court" thing within the meaning of the OP).

He's been advised for his health's sake to forget it and move on, so that's what he's trying to do.

It is, very often, the sensible thing do in the first place, e.g. on the basis explained by Manlinose (lossy exercise in the making? = forget it and move on).

 

The very first piece of advice I ever give (free of charge ) to any existing or potential client involved in contentious matters is to always use their head, never their heart (and/or male appendices ): people who start legal proceedings for principles (getting justice/getting even) rather than for potential gain (and I use that term in a very general/broad sense) get burned.

I think a lot of people will be surprised that 'fair' doesn't come into it L00b

The duty of any legal adviser is to their client, regardless of whether that client is the "good guy" or the "bad guy" in any situation: the job is "do what's best for the client", not "do what's right for the good guy".

 

That's one of the main reasons why "fair" doesn't come into it. Winning by means fair or (legally-) foul does, though. A lot.

[Anna B]

And thank you Anna B for dropping the broad brush/stereotypes for a moment

Expectedly, B did not go bankrupt because the matter was settled (rather than decided upon at Court) and B could afford the settlement. Incidentally (with ref to the OP), the Courts had nothing to do with that (unless a judge had to rubber-stamp the settlement...but then, that's just procedural, not really a "Court" thing within the meaning of the OP).

It is, very often, the sensible thing do in the first place, e.g. on the basis explained by Manlinose (lossy exercise in the making? = forget it and move on).

 

The very first piece of advice I ever give (free of charge ) to any existing or potential client involved in contentious matters is to always use their head, never their heart (and/or male appendices ): people who start legal proceedings for principles (getting justice/getting even) rather than for potential gain (and I use that term in a very general/broad sense) get burned.

The duty of any legal adviser is to their client, regardless of whether that client is the "good guy" or the "bad guy" in any situation: the job is "do what's best for the client", not "do what's right for the good guy".

 

That's one of the main reasons why "fair" doesn't come into it. Winning by means fair or (legally-) foul does, though. A lot.

 

Wel, I've certainly learnt something L00b, thankyou.

 

But now I'm even more convinced it all needs reforming....

[lotar]

will it cut back the no win no fee scroungers ?? hope so...