Solicitor and/or QC
Discussion
I am expecting myself to be both defending and counterclaiming legal proceedings from a building contractor.
Initial legal advice, services from a solicitor has left me rather shocked at my present legal fees I have incurred, with large corporate practice, is not always best over small solicitor's practice,
I therefore have to either settle the immanent legal claim, or defending the same myself, on a pick & mix basis.
Whilst I am in full possession of all the facts, documents, photographs, surveyor's survey reports etc. etc., I am possibly the best person to draft a Defence/Statement of Case etc. but I will still require legal advice, and a legal person to present, argue my case in court.
Whilst I still have contact with the above solicitor, a PH poster's posting has introduced me to a QC's web site.
I am not too familiar with the differing rolls between a solicitor and a QC, what are they, and can one engage the QC without instructing a solicitor, and are there any advantages and/or disadvantages in just engaging one over the other.
Thanks for any advice etc.
Initial legal advice, services from a solicitor has left me rather shocked at my present legal fees I have incurred, with large corporate practice, is not always best over small solicitor's practice,
I therefore have to either settle the immanent legal claim, or defending the same myself, on a pick & mix basis.
Whilst I am in full possession of all the facts, documents, photographs, surveyor's survey reports etc. etc., I am possibly the best person to draft a Defence/Statement of Case etc. but I will still require legal advice, and a legal person to present, argue my case in court.
Whilst I still have contact with the above solicitor, a PH poster's posting has introduced me to a QC's web site.
I am not too familiar with the differing rolls between a solicitor and a QC, what are they, and can one engage the QC without instructing a solicitor, and are there any advantages and/or disadvantages in just engaging one over the other.
Thanks for any advice etc.
A QC is a hugely experienced Barrister
Basically, a Solicitor deals with matters outside a Court, a Barrister deals with inside the Court, but will be better to draft docs.
You are unlikely to need a QC, just a normal Barrister, who's fees will depend on experience/years call. You dont need a solicitor as well
Look on clerksroom.com and you can submit what you need and get quotes
Basically, a Solicitor deals with matters outside a Court, a Barrister deals with inside the Court, but will be better to draft docs.
You are unlikely to need a QC, just a normal Barrister, who's fees will depend on experience/years call. You dont need a solicitor as well
Look on clerksroom.com and you can submit what you need and get quotes
Initforthemoney said:
My advice is pay what you owe and move on.
It appears this has been going on long enough as it is.
If you think there's a 55% or more chance you could lose at trial, do this. Legal bills on top of an adverse judgment will sting. Ignore pride and listen to pragmatism. It appears this has been going on long enough as it is.
Non-QC barristers' hourly rates are generally much lower than a solicitor from a large firm with equivalent experience. I recently instructed a junior (4-5 years call) barrister for approx £350p/h, whereas a solicitor of that level in my shop would be closer to £700p/h.
Also, I don't think that you having what you consider to be the most pertinent facts at your disposal necessarily makes you the best person to prepare any submissions. If you engage lawyers to do it on your behalf, you are paying for the clarity of thought and precision of drafting, to make it easier for the judge to find in your favour. Litigants in person rarely lead to overall cost savings or efficiently managed cases...
Also, I don't think that you having what you consider to be the most pertinent facts at your disposal necessarily makes you the best person to prepare any submissions. If you engage lawyers to do it on your behalf, you are paying for the clarity of thought and precision of drafting, to make it easier for the judge to find in your favour. Litigants in person rarely lead to overall cost savings or efficiently managed cases...
classicaholic said:
Can you get a mediation? It will save thousands in fees and costs.
The only people that win when you go to litigation are the lawyers and of course they never recommend you to settle when their gravy train starts to roll!
Far be it from me to defend the legal profession but, TBF, on every occasion my former employer decided to go to court, both our in-house lawyers and outside advisers (solicitors and barristers alike) advised, whatever the merits of the case, that going into court should be the last resort. Outcomes are far from guaranteed, costs frequently spiral and the amount of time and effort the organisation spends marshalling information and personnel is out of all proportion, generally, to any likely compensation gained. The only people that win when you go to litigation are the lawyers and of course they never recommend you to settle when their gravy train starts to roll!
OP I went through a very similar thing to you - a court case involving building work
I did all of the solicitor type stuff myself (filing paperwork etc).
I hired a barrister under direct access. He gave me advice and represented me. He could do other bits as well but some things he could not do so I did them. He charged me fixed fees to review the case and provide advice and he charged 1250 for everyday in court (which to be fair were long days and he worked in the evenings).
A barrister can be cheaper than a solicitor but a solicitor will manage the case a barrister will not. You can try doing the solicitor side yourself though. I can imagine though that if you used a solicitor the costs would rocket.
The thing that convinced me to get a barrister was when i visited some solicitors and they all said they would instruct a barrister for advice - I thought i would cut out the middleman as the main thing I wanted to know was the merits of my case.
Would it have been better if I had solicitors at the start - yes - but I managed to get through the process in the end.
The combined legal costs were significantly more than the original dispute! It also took about a year and a half from claim form to Judgement.
One other thing - I attended most prelim hearings on my own. Judges absolutely will respect and listen to barristers way more than they will listen to you as a litigant in person - i found this to be true for both me and the other side as we both did a mix of representing ourselves and using barristers.
I did all of the solicitor type stuff myself (filing paperwork etc).
I hired a barrister under direct access. He gave me advice and represented me. He could do other bits as well but some things he could not do so I did them. He charged me fixed fees to review the case and provide advice and he charged 1250 for everyday in court (which to be fair were long days and he worked in the evenings).
A barrister can be cheaper than a solicitor but a solicitor will manage the case a barrister will not. You can try doing the solicitor side yourself though. I can imagine though that if you used a solicitor the costs would rocket.
The thing that convinced me to get a barrister was when i visited some solicitors and they all said they would instruct a barrister for advice - I thought i would cut out the middleman as the main thing I wanted to know was the merits of my case.
Would it have been better if I had solicitors at the start - yes - but I managed to get through the process in the end.
The combined legal costs were significantly more than the original dispute! It also took about a year and a half from claim form to Judgement.
One other thing - I attended most prelim hearings on my own. Judges absolutely will respect and listen to barristers way more than they will listen to you as a litigant in person - i found this to be true for both me and the other side as we both did a mix of representing ourselves and using barristers.
Mojooo said:
OP I went through a very similar thing to you - a court case involving building work
I did all of the solicitor type stuff myself (filing paperwork etc).
I hired a barrister under direct access. He gave me advice and represented me. He could do other bits as well but some things he could not do so I did them. He charged me fixed fees to review the case and provide advice and he charged 1250 for everyday in court (which to be fair were long days and he worked in the evenings).
A barrister can be cheaper than a solicitor but a solicitor will manage the case a barrister will not. You can try doing the solicitor side yourself though. I can imagine though that if you used a solicitor the costs would rocket.
The thing that convinced me to get a barrister was when i visited some solicitors and they all said they would instruct a barrister for advice - I thought i would cut out the middleman as the main thing I wanted to know was the merits of my case.
Would it have been better if I had solicitors at the start - yes - but I managed to get through the process in the end.
The combined legal costs were significantly more than the original dispute! It also took about a year and a half from claim form to Judgement.
One other thing - I attended most prelim hearings on my own. Judges absolutely will respect and listen to barristers way more than they will listen to you as a litigant in person - i found this to be true for both me and the other side as we both did a mix of representing ourselves and using barristers.
One potential disadvantage of this way of working is that if you'd used a solicitor instead of a barrister you may well have achieved a settlement much earlier and at much less cost.I did all of the solicitor type stuff myself (filing paperwork etc).
I hired a barrister under direct access. He gave me advice and represented me. He could do other bits as well but some things he could not do so I did them. He charged me fixed fees to review the case and provide advice and he charged 1250 for everyday in court (which to be fair were long days and he worked in the evenings).
A barrister can be cheaper than a solicitor but a solicitor will manage the case a barrister will not. You can try doing the solicitor side yourself though. I can imagine though that if you used a solicitor the costs would rocket.
The thing that convinced me to get a barrister was when i visited some solicitors and they all said they would instruct a barrister for advice - I thought i would cut out the middleman as the main thing I wanted to know was the merits of my case.
Would it have been better if I had solicitors at the start - yes - but I managed to get through the process in the end.
The combined legal costs were significantly more than the original dispute! It also took about a year and a half from claim form to Judgement.
One other thing - I attended most prelim hearings on my own. Judges absolutely will respect and listen to barristers way more than they will listen to you as a litigant in person - i found this to be true for both me and the other side as we both did a mix of representing ourselves and using barristers.
That's because unless your case is cast iron solicitors will start negotiations with the other side at an early stage, and the large majority of cases are settled through negotiation. However, barristers don't work like that. They won't correspond with your opponent or negotiate (or at least not until you're waiting to go into court) and it's therefore far more likely that the case will end up at a trial. This is both very risky and very expensive.
It seems you were lucky and/or had a strong case, so this method worked for you. But it isn't a good way of dealing with things for most litigants in person.
As a matter of interest, did you manage to recover the barrister's fees from your opponent?
Pro Bono said:
They won't correspond with your opponent or negotiate (or at least not until you're waiting to go into court) and it's therefore far more likely that the case will end up at a trial. This is both very risky and very expensive.
Public Access Barrister should advise you to settle and will attend mediation days and negotiate settlements. Whilst I am presently engaging a solicitor, my concerns are being unable to control the increasing rising legal costs, the same with poor productivity, and more importantly no appraisal from the solicitor of my chances in both defending and issuing a counterclaim.
In recognise the significance of "a fool for a client", the same I believe however must outweighed by my personal knowledge, involvement and wealth of facts that I hold in the case.
Perhaps I was wrong in selecting a large corporate firm of solicitors, perhaps there are many smaller independent solicitors, who could offer far better legal advice, services, at a fraction of the costs of the above corporate legal practice. But in the limited time and finances I have, how do you seek out and find that competent smaller independent solicitor/s.
In recognise the significance of "a fool for a client", the same I believe however must outweighed by my personal knowledge, involvement and wealth of facts that I hold in the case.
Perhaps I was wrong in selecting a large corporate firm of solicitors, perhaps there are many smaller independent solicitors, who could offer far better legal advice, services, at a fraction of the costs of the above corporate legal practice. But in the limited time and finances I have, how do you seek out and find that competent smaller independent solicitor/s.
1. Any decent solicitor or barrister will always discourage litigation and will try to obtain settlement of a dispute as early as possible.
2. Litigation is a luxury product but one that brings with it hassle and heartache. I am a career professional litigator and I say: Avoid litigation if at all possible.
3. It is very hard for anyone to be objective about their own case.
4. You can have a good lawyer or a cheap lawyer. Pick one. AKA: buy cheap, pay twice.
5. Where you at? I can maybe recommend a law firm.
6. You do not need a silk unless the case is worth megabucks.
7. Please can we have just one thread on your dispute and not 93?
2. Litigation is a luxury product but one that brings with it hassle and heartache. I am a career professional litigator and I say: Avoid litigation if at all possible.
3. It is very hard for anyone to be objective about their own case.
4. You can have a good lawyer or a cheap lawyer. Pick one. AKA: buy cheap, pay twice.
5. Where you at? I can maybe recommend a law firm.
6. You do not need a silk unless the case is worth megabucks.
7. Please can we have just one thread on your dispute and not 93?
Good to see you back posting, in answer to your points.
1. Another of my concerns, no seeking of mediation or settlement of the builder's claim, simply forward we go with our/your defence.
2. Agreed, receive Summons today, which was met with me feeling physically sick.
3. I recognise that, but with extortionate legal fees what are my alternatives.
4. I went with a large corporate firm of solicitors, ending up with an extortionate high legal costs, with poor productivity from the solicitor's part time paralegal assistance.
5. Between Bristol and Exeter, preferably along the corridor of the M5 motorway south of Bristol.
6. I am defending a claim for £18k plus their possible legal fees, although a counterclaim could be between £50k-£100k.
7. Yes, and will reciprocate as follows:-
I have today received the other sides Court papers, up and to now I have been hesitant in incurring additional building surveyor's and solicitor's legal costs. If I am defend the Court papers, then I will need a building surveyor's survey report of the builder's uncompleted and defective works. That survey report may take between 10-12 weeks to produce, is there a way I can ask the Court for further time to produce a defence?
Thanks for your response, and your usual productive sound advice.
1. Another of my concerns, no seeking of mediation or settlement of the builder's claim, simply forward we go with our/your defence.
2. Agreed, receive Summons today, which was met with me feeling physically sick.
3. I recognise that, but with extortionate legal fees what are my alternatives.
4. I went with a large corporate firm of solicitors, ending up with an extortionate high legal costs, with poor productivity from the solicitor's part time paralegal assistance.
5. Between Bristol and Exeter, preferably along the corridor of the M5 motorway south of Bristol.
6. I am defending a claim for £18k plus their possible legal fees, although a counterclaim could be between £50k-£100k.
7. Yes, and will reciprocate as follows:-
I have today received the other sides Court papers, up and to now I have been hesitant in incurring additional building surveyor's and solicitor's legal costs. If I am defend the Court papers, then I will need a building surveyor's survey report of the builder's uncompleted and defective works. That survey report may take between 10-12 weeks to produce, is there a way I can ask the Court for further time to produce a defence?
Thanks for your response, and your usual productive sound advice.
Expensive is not the same as extortionate. The fees you mentioned in another thread did not sound unreasonable. Remember that law firms are businesses, have usual business overheads, and that only a percentage of the fee represents profit for the equity partners in the firm.
The firm you instructed maybe did not want your case because it is below its usual profitability level. one way to get rid of an unwanted client is to scare him or her off with a big bill. Or maybe the firm tried to do you a favour by deploying the cheapest member of the team.
I will have a think about which firm you might instruct. If you want a direct access barrister, ring Keating Chambers and ask if they have any baby juniors who do direct access. They may say no.
The firm you instructed maybe did not want your case because it is below its usual profitability level. one way to get rid of an unwanted client is to scare him or her off with a big bill. Or maybe the firm tried to do you a favour by deploying the cheapest member of the team.
I will have a think about which firm you might instruct. If you want a direct access barrister, ring Keating Chambers and ask if they have any baby juniors who do direct access. They may say no.
OP - it will get expensive very quickly.
A surveyor will charge for a report but they will also charge a lot to attend a court hearing
I think you will find most solicitors are reasonably expensive - i.e £150+ an hour and that could rocket to thousands or tens of thousands to manage a case.
Your defence to the initial claim can be basic - so you shouldn't need a report immediately.
If you are strapped for cash go for a barrister who can then offer advice on the process which you can then do yourself.
A surveyor will charge for a report but they will also charge a lot to attend a court hearing
I think you will find most solicitors are reasonably expensive - i.e £150+ an hour and that could rocket to thousands or tens of thousands to manage a case.
Your defence to the initial claim can be basic - so you shouldn't need a report immediately.
If you are strapped for cash go for a barrister who can then offer advice on the process which you can then do yourself.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff