Faith in the duty solicitor ?
Discussion
Hi Guys
I noticed Sparks advocating the services of the Duty Solicitor if you get dragged into court. I have contrary experience, so I thought I'd chuck in my threppence-ha'penny worth.
When I was 19 (1992), a guy in an uninsured & untaxed (& probably registed to the family dog) car took the front off my car whilst I was trying to get out of a side street. The stolen car was going *at least* double the speed limit in a residential street. He did a runner on foot when he came to a halt after bouncing off 5 or 6 cars.
The coppers who interviewed me at the time were perfectly civil and gave no indication that I was at fault or under suspicion of being so. But before theu left I was served what I now know to be a Verbal NIP. Somewhat less wordy and formal than today's though IIRC..
The goon who hit me turned up that evening and took his car away !! I gave chase in my hire car and flagged down a panda car. Plod went to a local house where I'd seen the car stop and they collared the goon.
About 5 months later, I got a summons for 'Driving Without Due Care & Attention'. The attached evidence comprised a couple of police statements - these pertained to how the goon came to be in posession of the car he pole-axed me with. Nothing to do with the accident itself at all. Not even the statement I had made to the attending traffic plod.
I concluded that the coppers were somewhat cynically 'mopping up' by trying it on with anyone in their pocket books they could fill a quota by prosecuting.
Nonetheless, with 5 points from a previous SP30, I wa 5h1tting myself. A ban would have been a disaster for me.
I turned up at court for the plea hearing. I saw the duty solicitor and showed him the shambolic evidence on display and explained what had occured.
He said "were you moving when the other car hit you?" I said "No". He said (*verbatim*) "If you were, you should plead guilty. In fact unless you have independent witnesses to say you were not moving, you should plead guilty."
Well, even at 19 I wasn't quite that f***ing stupid, so I went in and pleaded not guilty. The CPS stooge requested a 5 week adjournment for 'collection of further evidence' - they were gonna need it !
Now, it seemed to me that if they hadn't got their act together in 5 months to produce any evidence, the chance of them doing so in 5 weeks was slim. It wasn't so much a surprise as a relief, therefore, when the day before the trial I got a 'No further action' letter.
So, I could only conclude that they were trying it on under the assumption that I'd plead guilty. What they had not counted on was that I actually read the bumpf with my license and realised that if I did plead guilty I faced an almost certain ban on totting up.
Regarding the duty solicitor, well he was less than helpful - he was no advocate of mine.... The guy either had a severely limited mandate, or a particularly straight & narrow outlook. Either way he was serving only as a tool of the system. His advice was bad.
Whilst this is my one and only experience of a duty solicitor, I can't help but feel that there must be others out there like him. What proportion, I don't know. Either way, you need to be prepared to take their advice with a pinch of salt.
cheers.
I noticed Sparks advocating the services of the Duty Solicitor if you get dragged into court. I have contrary experience, so I thought I'd chuck in my threppence-ha'penny worth.
When I was 19 (1992), a guy in an uninsured & untaxed (& probably registed to the family dog) car took the front off my car whilst I was trying to get out of a side street. The stolen car was going *at least* double the speed limit in a residential street. He did a runner on foot when he came to a halt after bouncing off 5 or 6 cars.
The coppers who interviewed me at the time were perfectly civil and gave no indication that I was at fault or under suspicion of being so. But before theu left I was served what I now know to be a Verbal NIP. Somewhat less wordy and formal than today's though IIRC..
The goon who hit me turned up that evening and took his car away !! I gave chase in my hire car and flagged down a panda car. Plod went to a local house where I'd seen the car stop and they collared the goon.
About 5 months later, I got a summons for 'Driving Without Due Care & Attention'. The attached evidence comprised a couple of police statements - these pertained to how the goon came to be in posession of the car he pole-axed me with. Nothing to do with the accident itself at all. Not even the statement I had made to the attending traffic plod.
I concluded that the coppers were somewhat cynically 'mopping up' by trying it on with anyone in their pocket books they could fill a quota by prosecuting.
Nonetheless, with 5 points from a previous SP30, I wa 5h1tting myself. A ban would have been a disaster for me.
I turned up at court for the plea hearing. I saw the duty solicitor and showed him the shambolic evidence on display and explained what had occured.
He said "were you moving when the other car hit you?" I said "No". He said (*verbatim*) "If you were, you should plead guilty. In fact unless you have independent witnesses to say you were not moving, you should plead guilty."
Well, even at 19 I wasn't quite that f***ing stupid, so I went in and pleaded not guilty. The CPS stooge requested a 5 week adjournment for 'collection of further evidence' - they were gonna need it !
Now, it seemed to me that if they hadn't got their act together in 5 months to produce any evidence, the chance of them doing so in 5 weeks was slim. It wasn't so much a surprise as a relief, therefore, when the day before the trial I got a 'No further action' letter.
So, I could only conclude that they were trying it on under the assumption that I'd plead guilty. What they had not counted on was that I actually read the bumpf with my license and realised that if I did plead guilty I faced an almost certain ban on totting up.
Regarding the duty solicitor, well he was less than helpful - he was no advocate of mine.... The guy either had a severely limited mandate, or a particularly straight & narrow outlook. Either way he was serving only as a tool of the system. His advice was bad.
Whilst this is my one and only experience of a duty solicitor, I can't help but feel that there must be others out there like him. What proportion, I don't know. Either way, you need to be prepared to take their advice with a pinch of salt.
cheers.
If you want anything other than the most basic representation, the duty solicitor, even with the best intentions, is going to have great difficulty providing it.
Being a duty solicitor is not exactly plum work. Ditto representing the state working for the Crown Prosecution Service. Not suprisingly, you'll find a lot of the better solicitors going after more highly paid work. There are always exceptions to the rule, thank God, coz as per usual its the most vulnerable people who end up relying on the duty solicitor.
Being a duty solicitor is not exactly plum work. Ditto representing the state working for the Crown Prosecution Service. Not suprisingly, you'll find a lot of the better solicitors going after more highly paid work. There are always exceptions to the rule, thank God, coz as per usual its the most vulnerable people who end up relying on the duty solicitor.
quote:
My other half used to be a duty solicitor. She once got a speeder off who was doing over 70mph in a 30 zone.
The client was very, very pleased.
A quality effort ! Note that I never implied that all duty solicitors are a bad lot - merely conveying my limited experience...
I suspect my wife would be perfectly prepared to lambast the judiciary on my behalf too.... but being a hot-tempered IT Person and not a lawyer, it might result in something more like 6 months chokey than six points.. lol..
Easy tiger.
We're not all a bad lot.
I'm seven years in the law, and I make (not being a flash get) a very comfy living thanks very much (keeps me in Cerberas and 98 octane!). But the amount of pro bono work I've done over the years for people who couldn't otherwise afford me runs into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
You'd be better off aiming your venom in the firection of these leather tie Claims Direct merchants, who try it on for pikeys too lazy to work, and mean we all have to fork out more hard earned for insurance.
[RANT MODE OFF]
You'd be better off lambasting t
We're not all a bad lot.
I'm seven years in the law, and I make (not being a flash get) a very comfy living thanks very much (keeps me in Cerberas and 98 octane!). But the amount of pro bono work I've done over the years for people who couldn't otherwise afford me runs into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
You'd be better off aiming your venom in the firection of these leather tie Claims Direct merchants, who try it on for pikeys too lazy to work, and mean we all have to fork out more hard earned for insurance.
[RANT MODE OFF]
You'd be better off lambasting t
quote:It's a very good point - these people are thieving scum.
You'd be better off aiming your venom in the direction of these leather tie Claims Direct merchants, who try it on for pikeys too lazy to work, and mean we all have to fork out more hard earned for insurance.
Also, there was something on the "idiot's lantern" a while back about the scams going on in parts of London where people purposely get into accidents, then get insurance details, pop off to their GP, Dr Smith/Nbongo/Patel, for letter saying they were incapacitated by the accident. Insurers pay out wedge to scum and bent Dr takes a cut.
Job's a baddun.
***** Like Motoring ? Defend your right to do so! Join the Association of British Drivers - www.abd.org.uk/join.htm *****
Hi Zoomer ... I said "in large part". I'm well aware, and grateful, that there are still many decent practitioners. Claims Direct and their ilk are beneath contempt and in no way representative of the majority of firms.
Nonetheless, visit an A&E dept now and you will find local law firms are advertising. 20 years ago the profession considered that to be wholly unacceptable.
Over a similar period mergers have lumped small firms into far larger partnerships. And lo, they have sprouted marketing departments. Their fee earners, juniors in particular, are under far greater pressure to generate revenue than they ever used to be. To what end? Most work is ultimately handled by a single solicitor, so how is the service improved by that solicitor having ninety nine partners? It certainly doesn’t seem to have led to economies of scale being passed down to the client.
Look at how the indemnity fund became abused.
The commercialisation of the legal profession is certainly not unique. The track record of the high street banks is far, far worse. And this process has in large part been driven by the supposed “empowered” of the client. As individuals have become more concerned with the precise exercise of their “rights”, the relationship between client and professional has become far less trusting, more confrontational, more cautious … to the detriment of all.
Nonetheless, visit an A&E dept now and you will find local law firms are advertising. 20 years ago the profession considered that to be wholly unacceptable.
Over a similar period mergers have lumped small firms into far larger partnerships. And lo, they have sprouted marketing departments. Their fee earners, juniors in particular, are under far greater pressure to generate revenue than they ever used to be. To what end? Most work is ultimately handled by a single solicitor, so how is the service improved by that solicitor having ninety nine partners? It certainly doesn’t seem to have led to economies of scale being passed down to the client.
Look at how the indemnity fund became abused.
The commercialisation of the legal profession is certainly not unique. The track record of the high street banks is far, far worse. And this process has in large part been driven by the supposed “empowered” of the client. As individuals have become more concerned with the precise exercise of their “rights”, the relationship between client and professional has become far less trusting, more confrontational, more cautious … to the detriment of all.
Talking of bent claims etc. I dealt with an RTA the other day 4 Iranian Asylum seekers in a £50 banger, no insurance, tax, MOT etc through a red light and T boned Mr poor unsuspecting motorist, luckiliy he was not injured, guess what though the other 4 were complaining of .....whiplash!!!!!?????. Not bad eh free house, meals and a few grand in the bank (if the ins co are mug enough to fall for it)But maybe I should not go down that route, Police are supposed to be politically neutral, etc and all that. But that is just one of many such stories.
It wouldn't be such a problem if insurance companies weren't the spineless F***wits that they are, rolling over and paying out all the time - if they contested every case, right down to the last possible appeal etc, then the 'Claims Direct' scum would not find it in their interest to pursue the cases, and we'd all be better off.
Or you could just shoot 50% of the country's solicitors (starting from Claims direct pondscum and working up), that would probably help
Or you could just shoot 50% of the country's solicitors (starting from Claims direct pondscum and working up), that would probably help
Fatboy ... after you had shot half the solicitors ... you might find it hard to find anyone to represent you.
One of the problems the insurers have is delegating descision making far enough down the chain of command so that they can quickly assess the merit of a claim rather than applying pea-brained rules of thumb. Solicitors spend a lot of time having to pursue perfectly legitimate claims on behalf of their clients because the insurer is either confused or is trying it on and refusing to back down. This costs the insurers a packet so they pass it on to us in our premia.
One of the problems the insurers have is delegating descision making far enough down the chain of command so that they can quickly assess the merit of a claim rather than applying pea-brained rules of thumb. Solicitors spend a lot of time having to pursue perfectly legitimate claims on behalf of their clients because the insurer is either confused or is trying it on and refusing to back down. This costs the insurers a packet so they pass it on to us in our premia.
Just like to clear up one or two things regarding Duty Solictors:
1. They don't necessarily make big money - but that does not mean they are not good at what they do.
2. Anyone going to court has adequate notice to consult their own solicitor. If they leave it until the big day - then they should not complain.
3. Duty Solicitors are on a court rota - to keep people out of prison (there and then!) - nothing else. They are NOT there to hand out on the spot advice to Kevin and Perry who have been racing each other on the road and been caught for speeding.
4. Solicitors are there to make sure that the law is served fairly - not to turn the guilty into the not guilty. Everyone is entitled to a defence. More often than not, defendants get off more lightly than they deserve.
Anyone who has a driving licence should recognise that certain forms of behaviour break the law - and that if they get caught - then they will be punished. If they do not have the power of consequential thought - then they should not be allowed on the road. If you happen to get caught up in trouble, especially if you consider yourself to be an innocent victim - then go and see a solicitor straightaway. The more time they have, the better they can defend and advise you.
And no, I am not a solicitor.......
Edited by bryanlister on Thursday 25th October 09:43
1. They don't necessarily make big money - but that does not mean they are not good at what they do.
2. Anyone going to court has adequate notice to consult their own solicitor. If they leave it until the big day - then they should not complain.
3. Duty Solicitors are on a court rota - to keep people out of prison (there and then!) - nothing else. They are NOT there to hand out on the spot advice to Kevin and Perry who have been racing each other on the road and been caught for speeding.
4. Solicitors are there to make sure that the law is served fairly - not to turn the guilty into the not guilty. Everyone is entitled to a defence. More often than not, defendants get off more lightly than they deserve.
Anyone who has a driving licence should recognise that certain forms of behaviour break the law - and that if they get caught - then they will be punished. If they do not have the power of consequential thought - then they should not be allowed on the road. If you happen to get caught up in trouble, especially if you consider yourself to be an innocent victim - then go and see a solicitor straightaway. The more time they have, the better they can defend and advise you.
And no, I am not a solicitor.......
Edited by bryanlister on Thursday 25th October 09:43
That is possible the most articulate and well worked out defence of the legal proffesion and Duty Solicitor I have read. I must say I agree and it fits in with my general belief that if your getting something for nothing even if its crap you've got very little right to moan about it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff