Union Lawyers and the SRA
Discussion
If a union X provides member Y with legal help via their lawyers Z, who is the client?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?The client is presumably the person who instructs, i.e., the person who would be represented at court, not the funder. (Of course a union can seek legal advice in its own capacity so that is a general rule, rather than a specific case).
However the question of benefit and instructions, etc., is not necessarily the same thing. For instance, it may be clear in a dispute that it would be financially advantageous to settle but the client is more concerned to have their day in court, make the other side suffer, etc.
As such it is not the lawyer's duty to act in the client's best interests as if they were looking after a child, but rather to act in the interests of the client in giving effect to the client's instructions, albeit with appropriate caveats as to what the client might be giving up if they go down a particular path.
If you are not very close to the matter, you can't necessarily assume that even apparently bizarre pursuit of an agenda is anything other than in accordance with the client's instructions.
However the question of benefit and instructions, etc., is not necessarily the same thing. For instance, it may be clear in a dispute that it would be financially advantageous to settle but the client is more concerned to have their day in court, make the other side suffer, etc.
As such it is not the lawyer's duty to act in the client's best interests as if they were looking after a child, but rather to act in the interests of the client in giving effect to the client's instructions, albeit with appropriate caveats as to what the client might be giving up if they go down a particular path.
If you are not very close to the matter, you can't necessarily assume that even apparently bizarre pursuit of an agenda is anything other than in accordance with the client's instructions.
CYMR0 said:
The client is presumably the person who instructs, i.e., the person who would be represented at court, not the funder. (Of course a union can seek legal advice in its own capacity so that is a general rule, rather than a specific case).
However the question of benefit and instructions, etc., is not necessarily the same thing. For instance, it may be clear in a dispute that it would be financially advantageous to settle but the client is more concerned to have their day in court, make the other side suffer, etc.
As such it is not the lawyer's duty to act in the client's best interests as if they were looking after a child, but rather to act in the interests of the client in giving effect to the client's instructions, albeit with appropriate caveats as to what the client might be giving up if they go down a particular path.
If you are not very close to the matter, you can't necessarily assume that even apparently bizarre pursuit of an agenda is anything other than in accordance with the client's instructions.
That's the nub of the matter, it seems to me that the lawyer cannot serve two masters, but my strong suspicion is that the lawyer is dancing to the tune of the funder, ie the union, and not the union member. If this was demonstrable, and the lawyer acted in the union's interest to the cost of the member, would the SRA be interested?However the question of benefit and instructions, etc., is not necessarily the same thing. For instance, it may be clear in a dispute that it would be financially advantageous to settle but the client is more concerned to have their day in court, make the other side suffer, etc.
As such it is not the lawyer's duty to act in the client's best interests as if they were looking after a child, but rather to act in the interests of the client in giving effect to the client's instructions, albeit with appropriate caveats as to what the client might be giving up if they go down a particular path.
If you are not very close to the matter, you can't necessarily assume that even apparently bizarre pursuit of an agenda is anything other than in accordance with the client's instructions.
Potentially but I think you'd need more than a strong suspicion. Just because someone is acting irrationally (as you perceive it), it doesn't mean that they have been induced to do so.
Are you on the other side of the dispute? If so, and you've made a good offer to settle, it's possible that the union member (with the tacit and "uncommercial" support of the union) wants to see you suffer.
Incidentally there is nothing wrong with third party funding - it's an important element of access to justice - albeit the funder will be concerned to use its funds effectively and will normally (e.g., insurance companies) pursue only cases with a strong prospect to success. Of course the availability of funding is usually a benefit under a particular contract and therefore the funder has obligations to the client as well.
Are you on the other side of the dispute? If so, and you've made a good offer to settle, it's possible that the union member (with the tacit and "uncommercial" support of the union) wants to see you suffer.
Incidentally there is nothing wrong with third party funding - it's an important element of access to justice - albeit the funder will be concerned to use its funds effectively and will normally (e.g., insurance companies) pursue only cases with a strong prospect to success. Of course the availability of funding is usually a benefit under a particular contract and therefore the funder has obligations to the client as well.
as has been said it's third party funding - fundamentally many people pay union / professional association subscriptions for two / three things
1. professional representation ( by Union reps / FT officers)
2. Professional indemnity insurance
3. Legal 'insurance' > this is what we are talking aobut
some Unions ? Professional Associations have in house solicitors and only go outside where Court / Professional regulator proceedings are afoot and a A Barrister / Advocate is required...
1. professional representation ( by Union reps / FT officers)
2. Professional indemnity insurance
3. Legal 'insurance' > this is what we are talking aobut
some Unions ? Professional Associations have in house solicitors and only go outside where Court / Professional regulator proceedings are afoot and a A Barrister / Advocate is required...
IanA2 said:
If a union X provides member Y with legal help via their lawyers Z, who is the client?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough ste?
The client will be the individual i.e. union member.If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?Now, chances are from what you are saying is that you believe the lawyer is giving duff advice to ensure the union member does not pursue a good case thereby saving the union the legal fees. This is not unusual IME.
Would really need to know what way the case is going as such and what way would be better....
Considering if it's the union I think it is and that union not only says it promotes one of the roles as individual protection almost as an after thought then I wouldn't be at all surprised considering their other fingers in the pie. Everyone has an angle.
Objective independent paid for advice is where my suggestion would go.
Objective independent paid for advice is where my suggestion would go.
Jasandjules said:
IanA2 said:
If a union X provides member Y with legal help via their lawyers Z, who is the client?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough ste?
The client will be the individual i.e. union member.If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?Now, chances are from what you are saying is that you believe the lawyer is giving duff advice to ensure the union member does not pursue a good case thereby saving the union the legal fees. This is not unusual IME.
Would really need to know what way the case is going as such and what way would be better....
I've fairly sure that in the fullness of time that the correct destination will be arrived at, what interests me is wether the lawyer can be disciplined up by the SRA for causing so much pain and misery. i suspect not.
Jasandjules said:
IanA2 said:
If a union X provides member Y with legal help via their lawyers Z, who is the client?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough ste?
The client will be the individual i.e. union member.If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?Now, chances are from what you are saying is that you believe the lawyer is giving duff advice to ensure the union member does not pursue a good case thereby saving the union the legal fees. This is not unusual IME.
Would really need to know what way the case is going as such and what way would be better....
I've fairly sure that in the fullness of time that the correct destination will be arrived at, what interests me is wether the lawyer can be disciplined by the SRA for causing so much pain and misery. I suspect not.
Edited by IanA2 on Tuesday 1st July 11:39
Edited by IanA2 on Wednesday 2nd July 10:07
IanA2 said:
Jasandjules said:
IanA2 said:
If a union X provides member Y with legal help via their lawyers Z, who is the client?
If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough ste?
The client will be the individual i.e. union member.If the lawyers Z accept instructions/hints/suggestions from union X to go a particular way with a case, even though most competent lawyer would see that that was not to the benefit of member X, is that a matter that would concern the SRA? Perhaps said union X has their own agenda.
Or is it just tough s
te?Now, chances are from what you are saying is that you believe the lawyer is giving duff advice to ensure the union member does not pursue a good case thereby saving the union the legal fees. This is not unusual IME.
Would really need to know what way the case is going as such and what way would be better....
I've fairly sure that in the fullness of time that the correct destination will be arrived at, what interests me is wether the lawyer can be disciplined by the SRA for causing so much pain and misery. I suspect not.
IanA2 said:
Re-reading this, I think I should clarify that the pain and misery has been caused by the lawyers pushing the union's agenda to the detriment of the member's case which is very strong indeed. Ironically the other side seem to think so too!!
Take the claim to an independent employment lawyer.johnny fotze said:
If this concerns an unfair dismissal then the likely award if proven might be a lot less than you think it should be. In my experience, when offered a five figure out of court settlement the advice was along the lines of 'bite their hand off'.
Possibly, but some areas are uncapped.Jasandjules said:
IanA2 said:
Re-reading this, I think I should clarify that the pain and misery has been caused by the lawyers pushing the union's agenda to the detriment of the member's case which is very strong indeed. Ironically the other side seem to think so too!!
Take the claim to an independent employment lawyer.If a solicitor, they are bound by the SRA Rules and Code of Conduct.
See here for more info:
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/par...
See here for more info:
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/par...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff