corrupt solictiors

Sorry Charles but you are completely wrong.

I had no choice but to use solicitors in an attempt to protect my interests as I have 2 kids to support. He filed for divorce. I wasn't bothered. If he had been even half reasonable he could have saved himself £30k as I would not have gone to court at all. It was all about his punishment agenda as I had dared to leave him and make myself a better life.

The law, and it's involvement in divorce helps very, very few in my experience. And is always expensive.

My ex is getting his way by having a court order which says he can 'sell the house out from under me' (his words not the judge's). How does that protect my interests or keep my kids housed securely? How is this 'within the law'? And is it fair?

I don't know anyone who says 'Oooh yes, the court were brilliant and helped me out enormously'when they get divorced. It just isn't like that and to say it is is naive in the extreme. If people got on, they wouldn't get divorced!

Sorry, Charles, but this board wouldn't be necessary if the 'law' was helping us out.

And I would be very surprised if a death means we have to pay £30k to an undertaker.

And I would be very surprised if a death means we have to pay £30k to an undertaker.

You forgot to mention with a tombstone with spelling and grammatical errors and buried in the wrong plot!


Well done Ochre Brittlegill your are entirely correct, Charles skits the legal issues with no comment and uses fancy English with no substance to posture and perform

Charles is a legal professional who gives his time freely to the site, why does he do it? to help people, he and other lawyers and professional who help Wiki should be complemented not derided.

As for no substance its a laughable comment anyone who reads his posts will see they are packed with valuable and accurate information.

It should also be remembered that less than 5% of Ancillary Relief proceedings end at a final hearing even then many settle before a judge hands down judgment.

Personally i have never understood how a man and a woman divorcing can blame lawyers because they cannot agree.

Do they all do a good job no, in fact i can think of one i would happily strange well shout at anyway.

Please be respectful to other members we are all here for the same reason, as they say if you don`t have any thing constructive or supportive to say maybe its best left unsaid.

Peace and love to all Wiki`s

Thanks dukey.

For reference, I try to give assistance to those with genuine questions but for those that post comments directed at the legal profession I feel it necessary to exercise a right of reply. Whether it is appropriate for me to speak for the legal profession is another matter. We all have our own opinions and we are entitled to post them. Others can use those opinions in whatever way they wish.

There are a lot of people who use this forum who have instructed a solicitor and have been very happy with the assistance they have received. There are also those who are unhappy with their legal assistance which is usually one of the reasons they are here.

I have no hidden agenda here, only a will to share information and if necessary give a balanced response to people who believe, genuinely or otherwise, that their solicitor - or their ex's solicitor - is somehow incompetent, obstructive or dishonest.

As for the language I use, I apologise if I lapse into legal speak from time to time - most of the time I rattle out responses quickly due to time contraints. This is the third PC I have used to post messages today, the first being a friend's laptop, the second a PC at work and the final one being my home PC where I sit now before unloading the shopping! I could post fewer messages whilst focusing on style but for a free forum I think I can be economical with style

Charles

You know, it is depressing to me that this thread attracts so much attention.
Part of the problem with a forum like this is that satisfied customers do not complain. It is only those who have some grievance about the way their cases have been conducted who shout their mouth off.
Every profession has its rotten apples. Even the clergy, of all people, are not free from the occasional scandal, and there have been a few recent topical instances.
There will always be the occasional solicitor who engages in serious misconduct. I am sure I speak for Charles and TBagpuss when I say that we, the ones who would not dream of any such thing , hate such people. To bring the profession into disrepute is bad enough, but we are all required to pay into a Fund to compensate the victims of their dishonesty. I'm not arguing that this is wrong - quite the reverse - but you really can't expect us to enthuse about the idea of being gratuitous insurers for a few dishonest lawyers.
There is a world of difference between dishonesty and incompetence. There are, regretfully, those who are not up to the job, and that may boil down to a matter of training or lack of it. OK, he may be an incompetent lawyer, but it does not prove he is a bad man. And lawyers are required to take out third party negligence insurance - against quite rightly. This very fact will sooner or later weed out the weaker brethren, because nobody will insure them.
They say doctors bury their mistakes. But to stigmatise the medical profession as murderes on account of Harold Shipman is not on.

LMM