Legal terminology

[T40ORA]

OK - I'm posting for a friend here, so I don't have all the details. But in summary it appears that some time ago he was having some legal wrangles with a company and long story short he instructed a company of solicitors to take the the other guys to court/proceed with legal action.

The solicitors however decided to continue to negotiate with the other parties, against his instruction, and are pursuing him for more fees.He's pissed off and wants to use appropriate terminology in his correspondence with these solicitors.

Is there a term for what they have done? Is it just acting without client instruction? He thinks to use 'conflict of interest', but I'm not sure that is correct.

Any legal eagles out there can help?

English is not my mate's first language BTW.

TIA

[nickfrog]

Not sure but he needs to check in indeed the solicitors were acting against his (contractual) instructions - it is possible that he has committed to something contractually and that he would have needed to give them notice before they have to stop pursing the other party - just I guess btw.

[Happy Jim]

You will probably find the Solicitor are doing the right thing in complying with "pre court actions" , it's talking with the other side/laying out your claim/demonstrating how badly the other side will lose etc etc - at a guess it's what your mate thinks is negotiating.....that stuff takes time & costs money!

Jim

[LoonR1]

Just write down why he's unhappy, what he instructed them to do and what they've not done. There is no need for lots of here to for, thereupon, thereafter and feckless recklessness.

I hate to say it but conflict of interest doesn't sound like the right phrase either. There is no value in using long words that you don't know the meaning of, as it just makes you look a little chlorophyll.

[bladebloke]

If they've followed the rules, they should have set out how to complain at the outset of the matter , probably in their opening paperwork. Tell your mate to follow that procedure setting out why he's unhappy.

And as said above, no need to use any fancy language for the sake of it - he should set out in plain language why he thinks they've done the wrong thing. They might have a good explanation, they might have an explanation or they might have nothing!

[T40ORA]

Yeah, good points all. Possibly were just doing the right pre-court stuff. And yes, keep the language simple I guess.

[KungFuPanda]

The best lawyers and judges that I've had contact with have had the ability to explain complex legal situations to laymen in straight forward terms which can be understood buy anyone. That's more difficult than it seems.

[amusingduck]

KungFuPanda said:

The best lawyers and judges that I've had contact with have had the ability to explain complex legal situations to laymen in straight forward terms which can be understood buy anyone. That's more difficult than it seems.

It's the best way to sell your point

[Jasandjules]

You say against his instruction - what did he say to them?

I assume he is looking to follow the complaints procedure of the firm in question (writing to a partner I would expect).

[rayny]

LoonR1 said:

There is no value in using long words that you don't know the meaning of, as it just makes you look a little chlorophyll.

That deserves a place in pistonheads hall of fame