Treat clients as customers or you’re doomed, says Ombudsman
Law firms will not survive if they continue to resist consumer demands for fairer pricing, the Legal Ombudsman has warned. A report published today states that up to a quarter of the 90,000 annual complaints relate to costs, where a client has felt overcharged, confused or been surprised at the charges presented by their lawyer.
Chief ombudsman Adam Sampson (pictured) believes the majority of complaints he sees could, and should, have been avoided. He urged firms and lawyers to drop any reluctance to recognise that clients are also customers.
‘The notion of "customer" turns the traditional relationship between lawyer and client on its head,’ said Sampson.
‘In most businesses, the customer holds sway and can pick and choose which services to buy from which provider. This type of relationship is increasingly the norm even in the legal sector.’
Costs complaints are always linked to a lack of communication, with consumers baffled by jargon like ‘disbursements’ and angry that initial estimates have been exceeded, he said. New entrants to the market, buoyed by the liberalisation promised by alternative business structures and non-lawyer ownership, now present unprecedented challenges for the traditional firm.
Sampson added: ‘What we are seeing now are market changes forcing lawyers to face the possibility that their traditional view of how they go about their daily work may have to undergo a fundamental change.
‘Those who adapt to the market, it appears, will survive: those who cannot may be doomed to disappear.’
The report suggests a 10-point checklist for lawyers to ensure they will be covered by complaints about costs. It includes offering clear information on websites about costs and before initial consultations.
Firms must create a pricing structure and offer analysis of the consumer’s costs benefits. If the lawyer can provide a reasonable estimate, clients should be told if costs are nearing the limit and why, with a meaningful breakdown provided to explain the escalation. Certain services such as photocopying should form part of the overall service cost rather than be itemised, the report adds.
The ombudsman also wants to see the firms has taken time to explain terms and conditions, kept to any price caps and retained receipts for payments made, with lawyers ‘vulnerable’ if they cannot be produced.
Most importantly, the client care letter should include the reason a customer chose their lawyer, the course of action taken, what work will and won’t be carried out, standards and timescales of work and the likely costs of the case.
‘It is not enough for a lawyer to agree the cost of a service at the outset,’ said the report. ‘Many complaints arise because lawyers have not updated the customer about the cost of the case as it progresses and all too often lawyers fail to give customers the opportunity to try and control their costs.’
As well as advice for lawyers, the ombudsman has produced a guide for consumers to ask the right questions at the outset of cases.
Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Service Consumer Group, said: ‘We welcome the Legal Ombudsman’s guide on costs, which should help prevent consumers and lawyers from getting into unnecessary disputes.
‘Our advice to consumers is to shop around for the best deal, ask lots of questions and don’t be afraid to challenge your lawyer if you are unhappy about their fees.’
Comments
Civil Costs Confusion
The decision in the CFA/ATE funded case of Lord Coleridge -v- Sotheby's decided on 1 March 2012 could not underline better the confusion highlighted by The Legal Ombudsman.
The ‘win’ but at a very much lower than expected level of damages at trial ie £15,000 instead of the expected £225,000 or so could not demonstrate more clearly the fundamental flaw in either damages based agreements or success fees as a proportion of damages as proposed by Lord Justice Jackson and the Ministry for Justice.
This type of decision at trials is not unusual in particular in professional negligence claims where there are technical legal defences both as to negligence (as this case demonstrates) but also on causation ie did the negligence cause the loss claimed. Also common are defences of failure to mitigate and contributory negligence arguments where the professional blames the claimant for failing to reduce the level of damages or causing part of the damage themselves. Quantum of damage is highly technical and means that solicitors are unlikely to find attractive any sort of damages based retainer for their fees.
The Government should listen to the comments made by Adam Sampson that lawyers should clearly explain charges to customers as soon as possible and give a "reasonable estimate" of the total costs of a case and that the "key issue" when people use lawyers is confusion.The proposed reforms being voted on this week in the House of Lords are going to make the position MORE confusing.
How could Lord Coleridge’s solicitor have provided a ‘reasonable estimate’ of the total costs of the case at the outset if there had been a damages based agreement/success fee? Indeed would Lord Coleridge have run the case at all without recoverable success fees and ATE premiums? If the Government reforms (sections 43 and 45 LASPO) had been in force and his solicitors had given him a ‘reasonable estimate of the total costs of the case’ this would involve explaining that he would probably receive no damages at all even if he won the case.
I wholeheartedly agree that costs should be less confusing both for clients and for solicitors too - but is anyone going to listen to Mr Sampson's advice in civil litigation?
But clients are not
But clients are not customers, they are.....clients.
The "customer" must always be right-the ethos of retail. The client would not be a client if he knew the answer-because he would not need professional advice. The client is not always right-any more than the patient is right when he seeks medical advice.
Naturally, that does not what prevent a reasonable estimate of costs being given-but it can only be an estimate. Matters may be more complicated than originally envisaged. And just how does one know why a client appoints a solicitor?-so how is that included in the client care letter?
Furthermore, if the Ombudsman believes that the new entrants into the field of legal services are going to drive down costs, he is very much mistaken. Experience would seem to be that new entrants drive out the old participants by slick marketing but in reality costs go up.
So, all in all yet another solicitor bashing report from a solicitor bashing quango. I wonder how much the report cost-and was it true to the estimate? Perhaps we should be enlightened on that point-but we won't be.
"..Furthermore, if the
"..Furthermore, if the Ombudsman believes that the new entrants into the field of legal services are going to drive down costs, he is very much mistaken..."
Boy oh boy is he going to be mistaken. We haven't seen anything yet.
How are 'Quality' Solicitors going to get their 'investment' back (and the likes)?
I find the approach taken by the Law Society and SRA and Leg Serv Ombud. hilarious in this respect.
A Theory
"The Bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers".
Sampson is only obeying the objective processes of socio-economic restructuring endemic to the preservation of the imperative profit motive.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848. (not the last bit)
Predicting costs
The truth must surely be that few solicitors (if any) deliberately give misleading information to the client about costs. What the regulators seem not to understand is that is is at best difficult and at worst impossible to give any reliable estimate of costs in any case where a third party is involved, because one cannot predict how the third party (or his lawyers) will behave.
A dentist may be able to tell you how much it will cost to remove your tooth, because it's your tooth and he is the bloke removing it: there are only two parties involved in the matter. Where a third party is involved (as will often be the case where solicitors are instructed), the time which the solicitor will have to spend on the matter will depend on how efficient/awkward the third party and his solicitors are.
Whether you describe clients as "clients" or "customers" makes no difference to any of this. Indeed, I would have thought that "client" implied a level of service which a "customer" would not get. A customer is someone who goes into a shop to buy a Mars bar. A client is someone who needs advice or services from someone trained to give that advice/service. If you want to call these people "customers", feel free to do so: but be very careful about doing so, because what you are doing is demeaning the years of training which the person had to go through so that he could regard himself as a member of a profession.
The suggestion that a client care letter should explain why the client has chosen the solicitor is barely worthy of comment. "Why are you buying your Mars bar from me?" I asked the "customer". "Because you own a shop selling Mars bars," he replied. "Oh, and give me a quarter of peanut brittle and 20 Silk Cut, while you're at it."
Legal Ombudsman - define lawyers, not just Solicitors
Not just Solicitors in the mix I assume?
just let us do our job
The problem is not what "C" word that you decide to call the people who buy legal services. The problem is the fact that the regulations that govern the providers does not make it easy for the layperson to understand about costs or the service that they are getting. Regulation dictates that we have to give so much useless information at the outset that no wonder people complain when they don't understand the charges that have been levied.
To give the public what they want we should do away with the mountain of regulation that is dumped on us by the regulator and enforced by the ombudsman. Client care letters are too long, have too much useless information and do not benefit the public or protect them. We all know the reality is that people do not read them or want them. However, if we do not send one then the ombudsman and regulator would be down on us like a tonne of bricks. We therefore fill out checklist after checklist to make sure that we are compliant. We destroy tree after tree to send out the useless information.
My average Client / Consumer / Customer is not very well educated, often barely able to read or write. They just want help with situations that are often not of their making. They do not choose to have my services; they need it as events have happened. At a difficult point in their lives they don't want bureaucratic paperwork to be sent to them to say before I can start work you need to read this, sign that and return the other. The SRA seem to think that all clients of the legal profession mirror the profession itself, educated, intelligent professionals, with the time and the ability to read and understand the detail of a client care letter, etc.
Take away all the useless regulation and we free up time to do our jobs and concentrate on the provision of legal services. Costs will fall to the public, as we no longer have to spend time under the mountain of paperwork. Sometimes I feel that as a lawyer that paper is the only thing I am able to create.
yet another instance of
yet another instance of misapplied consumer discourse.
We offer judgment and advice - not a selection of oranges at Tesco.
Being a non-lawyer, Mr Sampson won't know that fixed-fees by their very nature have to factor in higher prices to cover for unseen contingencies.
Yet again, lions led by donkeys.
It is true that consumers
It is true that consumers (clients) are looking more at cost these days, but I believe that is not the reason why a lawyer does not obtain or retain a client. It is all in the relationship, and a big part of the relationship is communication. Communicating credibility and experience.
In professional services, you are not selling a tangible, but your talent/skills. A client is hiring its legal counsel based on trust, and that the attorney is giving him/her something of value that will provide a solution or make their life easier. If the client is satisfied with the outcome, price should not be a question.
It's a relationship for the long-term, and in any relationship, communication is a big part of each party feeling they are receving value.
LeO
What does it mean "treat clients like customers?" What's the difference?
It's the same nonsense that
It's the same nonsense that decided train passengers are now customers instead
Leo
The notion that ' the client care letter should include the reason a customer chose their lawyer.... what work...won’t be carried out' shows how completely out of touch Mr Sampson and the LeO are with the realities of a solicitor's work and the relationship with their client. Surely only the customer
( client?!) can honestly answer that and the last time I took my car to my local garage to have a new exhaust, they didn't tell me that they weren't going to check the tyre pressure -I should have thought it rather strange if they had and probably annoyed they'd given me a 7 page letter which I had to sign before they started work!
LEO
Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Service Consumer Group
‘Our advice to consumers is to shop around for the best deal, ask lots of questions and don’t be afraid to challenge your lawyer if you are unhappy about their fees.’
Try to challenge the Legal Ombudsman and they call black white then put the phone down on you !
Bob Crow would be proud of solicitors
Yet again, more whinging about an article which mentions the need for change in the legal profession. Some of you trivialise the complaints - others choose to nitpick about parts of the article. All this is a whole lot more than a debate about whether to call a client a customer or a consumer.
It is all about the basics such as being accountable, transparent, communicating well and integrity - and that means a complete culture change for the majority of you. Disputes about legal costs make up a significant proportion of all complaints. Why not start thinking what you can do to prevent these complaints and take action? By all means challenge the issues you have which may prevent you from doing your job (for example too much compliance and paperwork) but show a willingness to work with the SRA and Legal Ombudsman to work through this. Sitting here complaining and not engaging and not changing is just going to isolate you further and further. All the above posts just come across as being about self interest and not striving to build a decent profession to be proud of.
Reading some of the views here is like reading those on Bob Crow's blog on industrial relations.
Remember this part of the above article - and remember it well.
...........
Sampson added: ‘What we are seeing now are market changes forcing lawyers to face the possibility that their traditional view of how they go about their daily work may have to undergo a fundamental change.
‘Those who adapt to the market, it appears, will survive: those who cannot may be doomed to disappear.’
...........
"Non Lawyer"
And one more thing - Mr Sampson being a 'non lawyer' is probably an advantage. The more non lawyers in high positions in the profession the better.
And before you dispute the above have a think about what Desmond Hudson has done for the Law Society. O.K - probably some achievements he can point to but what about the things that matter in the wider world?
Has he done a good job representing you and the Law Society?
Has he been pragmatic, clever and influential in the areas which matter?
Or has he just suceeded in picking pointless arguments which have marginalised you all, to the extent he is regarded as a liability and has little influence or relevance?
An excellent response,
An excellent response, setting out the reality of legal practice.
The point about using cheaper staff for the "donkey work" is particularly well made. It just leads to mistakes and complaints. Quite why this is not universally understood defeats me. Surely there is enough evidence from other businesses, where doing so produces the same result-banking, insurance-in fact any type of service "industry", for it to be realised that it actually increases the cost to the "customer" in wasted time and actual money. Try complaining to a bank-you'll get the "complaints department" who will "respond" (not answer) in fourteen days-when all you want is the mistake put right asap. If Sampson doesn't realise this, then he is not "fit for purpose".
Of course, things will change back again, as banking will now have to be responsible about lending-but in the meantime, expect colossal damage to be done.
Incidentally, of course Sampson has a political agenda-he is a political appointee.
Stephanie: "We may not be
Stephanie: "We may not be perfect, but we work extremely hard to take good care of our clients". Well said. That is the case with 99.9% of us. Unfortunately, cyclopic solicitor bashers like Kelly don't realise that and think we're all shysters.
I hadn't seen Sampson's Guardian article before. What a joke. Has he ever actually read the Code of Conduct? Am I mistaken, or is the 1st Section entitled "You and your client" (not you and your customer)? Is Chapter 1 called "Client care" (not customer care)? Is Chapter 5 called "Your client and the court" (not your customer and the court)? Is chapter 6 called "Your client and........" etc? I'm sure you get the message.
I'm not aware the word "customer" appears anywhere.
Yet this arrogant prat writes in his article "Three years ago, when we began setting up the Legal Ombudsman, our first press release talked of the new service as helping to resolve disputes between lawyers and their customers. The Guardian's Marcel Berlins immediately took me to task for my solecism: people who use the services of lawyers are clients, he said, and to refer to them as customers was an unforgivable error."
Quite right Marcel. Client (not customer) is the word our regulator uses.
The downside is that, having just found myself agreeing with the SRA, I will now have to go and lie down in a darkened room..........!!
PS Kelly - any chance of you finding another profession to haunt?
Response
Mr Sampson,
One must assume you read the Gazette. Perhaps you could respond to these comments?
Obviously a rhetorical
Obviously a rhetorical question!
Our rulers are not in the slightest bit interested in what the ruled think-they have an agenda to pursue and they will do so. It is why they were appointed and they get well paid for it-there is no chance whatsoever that they will jeopardise it.
To Anon on Sat, 10/03/2012 -
To Anon on Sat, 10/03/2012 - 22:39, thanks for your comment and your penultimate line made me giggle, a rare thing on these pages!
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Stephanie
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. It certainly is the most thought provoking and balanced post I have read here for some time from someone who works in the profession. In fact before you came along I was beginning to despair by what I was reading.
I'll explain my position here. A few years ago I came across some libel cases which were conducted in the most appalling way by a London law firm. These caused considerable distress to dozens of people, some of whom I have since met. I then became aware of the appalling file sharing/copyright cases. And then I came across the listings on the Solicitors from Hell site (many of which I felt were unfair to some solicitors) but was appalled that the Law Society subsequently closed it down. So for me, reading and contributing here is a personal interest of mine and as a member of the general public.
To answer your question about the profession of those who have been critical like myself - if I say too much about what I do currently (it is nothing glamorous or high powered) you may know the company I work for and no doubt on Monday my boss will be receiving calls from readers here!! However, during the past twenty years I have worked for motor insurers in several roles (and had dealings with solicitors and CMCs) - and in arbitration, mediation, compliance work in companies listed on the stock market. So, despite the comments of some on here I think my experience has helped me form opinions on some of the very good articles on this site – which incidentally are of interest to many people beyond the profession.
Anyway, the overwhelming view on 'Solicitors from Hell' and other consumer sites is that many solicitors are greedy, lazy, incompetent and unethical. However I believe that to tar the whole profession with the same brush is totally unfair - and I was hoping to learn more about why the public and people from other professions have this perception of solicitors, by looking at it from the viewpoints expressed here.
I have come across some people here who are truly honest and care about their profession. Yet almost without fail, when I or anyone else has applauded action by the SRA against rogue solicitors or criticised unethical practice, the overwhelming majority of readers have jumped to defend the behaviour of the offenders concerned. In the example of ACS Law case which was discussed here, several contributors argued why they felt the SRA were wrong to discipline the file sharer law firms. To me it sounded as if their arguments were based on technicalities and attempts to distort the real intention and meaning of the imperfect wording in the SRA handbook - to put across the notion that the SRA were misinterpreting their own rules. I have learned through debating here that as soon as an opponent starts quoting directly from the SRA handbook to support their view - he or she has usually lost the argument.
Folks here who defended these offenders against the SRA/SDT sanctions was something I struggled to get my head around. Some of these solicitors have acted appallingly and given the whole profession a bad name. Yet, unlike wrongdoing in other professions, solicitors good and bad (and ugly) tend to stick together and defend each other. Personally I feel this is not because solicitors condone wrong doing but because they feel they are under attack by all sides, feel misunderstood and unappreciated and at the same time are totally disillusioned by the SRA, the Ombudsman and the Law Society. Naturally when one is isolated, the defence mechanism comes into play and people tend to retreat back to a narrower and often self interested mindset. But the point I am making here is that the Law Society and its members, by not listening to and simply dismissing the views of consumer websites, the insurance industry, CAB, the SRA and Ombudsman, the government and pretty much everyone else only reinforces the perception that the profession is full of wrongdoing, has something to hide and lacks any will to change for the better and therefore needs a good shake up.
I think the issues and concerns such as those you have expressed can always be resolved through constructive dialogue and mediation. But mediation and compromise seem concepts completely alien to the Law Society and many of its members - hence why I think Hudson should be replaced with someone who understands that being overly confrontational and hostile to change is not going to achieve anything. Ideally his replacement (if the rules allow) should be from someone without a legal background but is good at dealing with people.
Anyway this whole situation sometimes reminds me of this famous final showdown (see 3.30mins onwards) in this three man gunfight in The Good , The Bad, and The Ugly. I wonder which gunfighter is most like Mr Hudson. Perhaps the one who finds his gun has no bullets when he starts to shoot?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6x401CGAl8
A number of points 1. If
A number of points
1. If there has been a wrongdoing e.g. libel-are you suggesting that the person wronged should have no redress? Presumably if there was no case, the plaintiff lost with consequent costs against. That is how the system works. Anyone can issue proceedings-anyone. If there is no real case, they lose-that is a matter for the Court to decide. If the case is effectively vexatious, then again that is for the Court to decide-and the Court can impose sanctions accordingly.
In the case of the file sharing matters, you may well consider it a technicality, but as I understand the law (and I do not know the field well), evidence that site has been visited by the USP is effectively final. No, I don't think that is morally right but it just happens to be the law. The same applies to many other "offences"-again I don't think that is morally right, but it is the law. So what has happened is the firms have been penalised for applying the law-because there was a public outcry (but not to change the law-far too difficult!) On that basis let us just have rule by mob!
2. the SRA is seen to have an agenda to destroy small firms. It does this by over-zealous enforcement of minor rules. God help you if there is a small error! Well, fine there won't be a tier of small firms-the ones who probably would help people in trouble because it was their own firm and they personally could decide that no, there wasn't a profit but there was a client who needed help and couldn't afford it. That's now history-best of luck with the future when you need that sort of help-it won't be there. And by God, it'll be needed because in the corporatist state we have, the individual is going to suffer at the hands of government and large corporations.
3. most solicitors were not in favour of action against SfH, generally believing in free speech-but of course we don't count-not having a proper repreentative body.
4. I really don't know why I bother to respond because you believe solicitors are mainly corrupt (which I do not) and most of the public now believe it. Well, we aren't going to be here when you need help-best of luck, you're going to need it.
BTW, no Sampson won't debate-he's way above that sort of thing!.
Mr Sampson - up for a debate here??
Submitted by Anon on Sat, 10/03/2012 - 22:39.
PS Kelly - any chance of you finding another profession to haunt?
Anon - who do you suggest I haunt next?
If it's any consolation to you it is nothing personal and I have been quite outspoken in other areas too. I have criticised company directors in listed companies, vexatious litigants, utility companies and claims management companies many times. And I have been threatened with libel proceedings more times than I care to remember.
But you will find my comments are usually fair and any slightly more provocative contributions are usually an attempt to generate a worthwhile debate.
By the way - I agree it would be good if Mr Sampson and other public figures came on here to debate these matters.
But the problem is Kelly
But the problem is Kelly Matthews, that your criticisms make no sense. There is no logical empirical argument behind what your saying.
In essence it is:- "Some people - but apparantly not myself - don't like solicitors and would like to blame them (because it is easier to blame ACS Law than it is to blame Media CAT Limited; it is easier to blame Edwin Coe than it is to blame Nigel Smith). Therefore a section of the population of solicitors is inherrently corrupt / bad / manipulative or whatever. Therefore I am going to moan without any coherent or specific points, and support anything that I perceive to be against solicitors, and disagree with anything in their favour."
And you wonder why your views on here do not gain much support?
At least Maureen Carroll, another poster who likes solicitor-bashing has a slightly more rational argument, which goes along the lines of:- "I was involved in some sort of complex litigation involving trusts and estates. Something, somewhere, did not go the way I wanted / liked / hoped. I therefore blame the solicitors profession (rather than the litigants, the barristers, the judges, the courts, the banks, the Land Registry, the Government, or anyone else involved in the matter)."
Let's go back to the basics of your argument, that Edwin Coe acted for a person whose motives you disagreed with. Please tell me what rule you think ought to be in place to protect the perceived victims of Edwin Coe? I'd really love to know. Also, even more unclear to me is why it is their fault and not Nigel Smith's fault?
So far, I have it that they sent letters which the judge stated did not comply with the pre-action protocol. (Indeed in some cases the letters appear not even to have been sent).
I am a litigator. Every client I act for wants me to take the case to court without complying with the relevant pre-action protocol (and I entirely agree with them, as the protocols are on the whole pointless, irrelevant, incur unnecessary costs, and just delay things).
Mostly we do issue protocol letters before suing. Some clients instruct me not to, and are happy to take the risk, in which case we just send a straightforward letter of claim (particularly if the matter is low value, straightforward, and has been ongoing for some time such that the letter wouldn't add anything).
I am not a charity. Whilst people such as yourselves who have this strange irrational hatred of solicitors think that we should work for free, I am not going to do so (unless it is a deserving client, in which case I do sometimes, but on my own terms only). Therefore my client pays for writing the pre-action protocol letter.
This varies from protocol to protocol (depending upon the area of law concerned) but includes such gems as telling the person to whom you are writing (by post) what you think their name and address is, and most importantly giving them three months to respond. In professional negligence they are allowed 21 days to acknowledge the letter, and only then does the three month period start. So really they have four months. Defamation, due to the shorter primary limitation period is correspondingly shorter (as is judicial review)
And do you know, Kelly Matthews, what the respondent does after that four month period? Do they say "oh we're terribly sorry, we agree with everything, we just need to discuss the value of compensation and we're prepared to go to mediation to haggle over it; after that we will pay your reasonable legal costs."?
No. They either ignore the letter (if they are unrepresented), or (if it is a solicitor acting) they write - usually on the last day - "your letter is not compliant with the pre-action protocol", followed by a first year undergraduate level analysis of the letter of claim to see what holes they can pick. You then have to advise your client either to issue, but risk the holes they have picked being used against them on costs, or to play a pointless game of "correspondence ping-pong". Most lawyers are happy and delighted to do this. It increases costs, which are paid by the client. I despise this criminal waste of time, resources and trees. Eventually, the claim gets issued anyway.
(And guess what, if I advise a client on the receiving end of a claim, I advise them to do the same - because it causes cost and delay for the claimant which may tip the balance in favour of the defendant).
So why the rant? Well, now I have explained the practice of letters of claim, how could it possibly have made a difference in the ADVFN Plc case?
You can ALWAYS find a problem with a letter of claim, and say that "it isn't compliant with the pre-action protocol." Always. Unless you ask the other side "what would you like us to cover in the letter of claim" (assuming they would answer, which of course they wouldn't), they can always say "you failed to give particulars of the key pre-contractual meeting which hapenned on such a such day" or whatever.
Secondly, were the ADVFN Defendants ever going to settle? If a good letter of claim had been written, would they have paid up? Of course not! So why does it matter?
The answer is - it doesn't.
There is no causative link between the solicitors' alleged misdeeds and the alleged grievance, other than the fact that they took their client's instructions.
And I could go on and analyse to the same level of depth all the other claims you make to justify your hypothesis that solicitors (or some of them) are corrupt.
And why blame the solicitors? Why not the barristers? Why not ADVFN's legal team? Most importantly why not Smith himself?
Lesson 1 - Pre-action protocol by Wizard Domcoop
I have to say, there are occasions when I wonder whether there are two separate Law Gazettes and perhaps I have logged on by mistake to the Law Society Gazette for Wizards at platform Nine and Three Quarters.
If I have, can someone direct me back to the website for muggles please?
Seriously Domcoop
I am flabbergasted at what you've just written.
Anyway - I am going to respond to you. There are so many holes in your post I do not have the time to go through them with you just now.
In the meantime I would be grateful if any other readers wish to add anything further to Domcoop's comments about protocol compliance. He clearly thinks it is a waste of time but I would beg to differ - certainly in the case of defamation claims. So I would invite views from other readers on this interesting area of the law.
"I am a litigator. Every client I act for wants me to take the case to court without complying with the relevant pre-action protocol (and I entirely agree with them, as the protocols are on the whole pointless, irrelevant, incur unnecessary costs, and just delay things)".
Although you (Domcoop)
Although you (Domcoop) misunderstand me you do paint a succinct picture of the Pre Action Protocol: "......pointless, irrelevant, incur unnecessary costs, and just delay things". Domcoop further elaborates that the letter is deliberately ignored until the last day and then dismissed on some trivial point. Then a " pointless game of "correspondence ping-pong" might begin. While despising this "criminal waste of time and resources" Domcoop admits to playing the same game himself by deliberately causing "cost and delay for the claimant" in the hope that it will benefit the Defendent as it must benefit Domcoop's wallet.
While I wouldn't say that Domcoop is inherently corrupt I would say that he has been corrupted by a system that is corrupt. Get rid of the Pre-action protocol and have televised court hearings with a panel of laymen jurors....particularly with Professional Negligence cases. The essence of the pre action protocol - active resolution - is sound but the reality is as Domcoop describes it.