Solicitors

Up until my need for a legal representative for the Employment Tribunal, I had only
used solicitors specializing in house conveyance, which generally speaking had been
uneventful, and did nothing to prepare me for the events that were to ensue. I will be
as brief as possible, only covering ground I feel will be of use to the reader.

At the first meeting, my case, an Employment Tribunal issue, was discussed. I had
documented everything that had happened, kept all letters and notes, all in keeping
with my job which had been a senior professional in a large international company,
and a high level project manager.

I was provided with a verbal estimate, being given a likely figure, and a maximum
figure, assuming the Tribunal went 3 days. I was covered by an insurance for such
events, but I decided I would get an idea of cost from a more local firm, and if costs
seemed reasonable, thought I might pay privately, and perhaps get a higher level of
care and attention to my case, how wrong I was.

I accepted his oral estimate, and was sold on his assurances and self accolades.
When I received his written confirmation of our meeting, I was dismayed to see he had
already upped his estimate by about 25%, and his letter already veering away from the
statements so glibly made at our meeting. The alarm bells tingled, but I stupidly
ignored them, and as this was the first time I had encountered this kind of situation,
decided to allow him the benefit of my trust.

Over the weeks that followed, I was aware there were strict time limits in which to
lodge the required papers with the Tribunal Offices, and that time was quickly going
by. I waited for some form of communication from the solicitor, but when it got to a
week or so before the closing date, I rang the office. It was a good job I did, it seemed
to me I had been forgotten. There followed a flurry of activity, in which he faxed
through to the tribunal what turned out to be a generic and unacceptable submission.
With input from myself, amendments were made, and a satisfactory submission made. I
started to worry!

The next step is the preliminary hearing, at which the basics are discussed such as
the number of witnesses, evidence to be submitted, such as doctors reports, what
points can be agreed between the parties. The solicitor who was sent to represent me
at this hearing, was not the one I had secured the services of, he was a part time
judge at tribunals, and it would not be considered proper to be represented by him. I
again was worried by this turn of events. The process itself is very fair, just you and
your representative, as well as the representative of the respondent, sit in front of the
chairman and discuss the case.

In the few weeks that followed, I was staggered by the events to come. The solicitor
who had represented me at the hearing had left the firm, and now worked for the
opposition! As well as this, the Judge had mixed up his notes, and sent wrong
directions to both parties. It was decided, much against my own wishes, to accept the
notes made by the other parties solicitor. This meant that whatever the other parties
notes had said regarding witnesses, evidence etc. was taken as read. When I voiced
concerns, which I also put in writing, I was verbally assured there was no problem,
and the fact that the solicitor who represented me at the hearing now worked for the
other side, was also not a problem. Trust the ethics of the profession I was told!!!

Over the months that followed, it was a similar pattern to the hearing. I wrote
numerous times to try to get things moving, all ignored. I eventually met with the
solicitor, who increased his estimates as to costs by a further 50% or so. He said I
could help to keep the cost down by preparing the bundle. This is all the evidence and
documents to be used at the Tribunal, by both sides, including an index, a massive
task. I realized at this stage I had made a big mistake in trusting this solicitor, but by
this time I was too far down the road to turn back and he knew it.

During the three months prior to the Tribunal, letters, emails and phone calls from me
went unanswered. I had written my own statement, and wanted it read. I had been told
that he would go through it with me, coaching me he said to make sure it supported
the evidence. He never did. I completed the bundles as best I could with the almost
zero feedback from him, most fraught with concern. Two weeks before the tribunal,
the case still had not been valued, in spite of my writing expressing concern months
before, also providing the necessary information for him to be able to make an
accurate assesment.

It is normal in a case such as this for all losses to be taken into account, loss of pay,
loss of pension, loss of bonus etc. etc. the idea being to provide a total figure which is
used in negotiating when the usual discussions on settlement start. In the file which I
eventually obtained, there was evidence that both ACAS, and the defendants
solicitors, had been attempting to negotiate for months, all ignored by my solicitor. As
well as this, he opted to go on a business trip two weeks before the Tribunal, leaving
me in the hands of an article clerk who was just starting his first week in employment
law. Also, the Barrister who had been booked many months before, had found herself
double booked, and could not represent me. Another Barrister agreed to step in, but
admitted later that employment law was not his specialty.

The net result of all of this, was that the solicitor I had engaged was not contactable
for the two weeks prior to the Tribunal, I was in the hands of an article clerk who very
obviously did not know whether he was coming or going, and a Barrister who could
not believe the lack of preparation for the case. He deemed I did not have key
witnesses, evidence had not been gathered, the case was not valued, the list goes on.
The result of this was the week before the Tribunal an offer of settlement was made by
the other party, which the barrister advised me to take. I was unable to weigh this offer
against the official value of the case, as I had never been given one, but I had roughly
worked one out myself based on the figures I had supplied, and the offer was about
one tenth of the value. I refused it. I then wrote a formal letter of complaint, and sent it
to the firm, listing my complaints.

The day of the tribunal arrived, and put simply, on the second day, after much
pressure from the Barrister, in the realization that the case preparation had been a
fiasco, I accepted an offer of settlement. It was an increased offer, and represented
about a quarter of the losses I had suffered, as calculated by myself, as I still was not
given a formal assessment by my representatives.

I had documented everything. I had noted the considerable disparity between what
was said and what was written, I had listened to incredible amounts of bull, and felt I
now understood how someone felt who had been badly let down by those who had
charged large sums of money to supposedly help and assist.

It should be noted that in settlements like this, everything over Ł30,000 is taxed before
you receive the money. This is something I was not aware of when initially accepting
the offer, but was told just afterwards, so be aware.

Weeks later, I received the bill, it had gone up yet again, and was now about three
times the original estimate, and well over double what I had originally been given as
the top upper limit. This was in spite of an appalling service, my letter of complaint,
and a verbal discussion in which I clearly pointed out the numerous flaws in the
disgraceful level of service I had received.

The matter was put in the hands of the Law Society, the Office for the Supervision of
Solicitors. You can read about this in the appropriate link, but I am afraid it is another
horror story.
The level of bias is blatant, a taster being, when presented with the view from another
firm of solicitors that the service had been in fact negligent, and a list of examples
given, the investigator at the OSS stated, “just because a service is negligent, it does
not mean it was poor service”. I rest my case.

For the record, I did enlist the aid of another firm of solicitors under my insurance
cover. They found that I had been the recipient of a negligent service, but they said a
loss could not be proven. This means that even though it could be shown the service
was negligent, it could not be proven that this had caused a loss. The lack of ability to
display that loss was a case of one firm protecting another!

This second solicitor proved to be in many respects equally as bad as the one they
were investigating. They refused to consider evidence that supported my case, the
solicitor I was assigned openly admitted he had no experience in employment law, but
assured me he would enlist the aid of others in the firm who did have the experience.
He never did.
I was later told by my insurers that in the past two years, cases against solicitors had
spiralled upwards, but up to that point in time, not a single one had been won through
his firm!
Basically it seemed to me to be an exercise of maximizing their fees, while minimizing
their real progress. A case of one firm covering the other. As I had documented events
and filed all letters involving the first firm, proving negligence was easy, at least in
law, though this was not accepted by the Law Society, in their words, we decide, not
other solicitors.

Learn from this.

Record where possible phone calls and meetings. Always advise the other party you
are doing this, otherwise the evidence is not admissible. Keep a record of dates of
meetings and phone calls, (the second firm claimed we had had many meetings, we
had in fact two!). Remember people can and will lie if they are challenged, it is up to
you to prove your case.

Good luck, you will need it.