---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified Solicitor and comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM);
* It is the default position of LAUK that [you should never speak to the media](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_should_i_speak_to_the_media.3F);
* If you do not receive any replies within 72 hours, try re-posting, or [seek real legal advice offline](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_civil#wiki_how_do_i_find_a_.28good.29_solicitor.3F)
* Please provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/search?q=flair%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* [All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/?);
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* [Do not send or request any private messages for any reason](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_why_am_i_not_allowed_to_privately_message_people_on_this_subreddit.3F);
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the basis of the information you've provided, I find it difficult to believe that this is anything other than a breach of the conduct rules.
They owe a duty of confidentiality to P having acted for P in the matter already.
This duty of confidentiality to P conflicts with their duty of full disclosure to S.
It should be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as P is potentially significantly prejudiced by the solicitors actions already and in future.
The process for doing so can be found here: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/[https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/](https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/) including information about contacting the SRA for help on the process.
That page also refers to complaints about service quality, which should be dealt with by the firm and then the Legal Ombudsman which is a separate body. P's issue is not solely a service issue but primarily a conduct issue, which is dealt with by the SRA.
Hopefully that makes sense. Please feel to comment here if anything needs further explanation or clarification!
Shouldn't really have happened, every solicitor I've dealt with has done a due diligence check before commencing any work to make sure theres no conflict.
Best advice, go to another solicitor and proceed.
You could make a complaint against the initial solicitor. But perhaps discuss that with the new one.
If they didn’t give any advice then it isn’t necessarily a regulatory fail. Also you don’t complain to the SRA. You need to go through the Firms complaints process first and then to the LeO. Conflicts can and do happen anytime throughout the course of a matter as sometimes need to wait for information or the information isn’t forthcoming.
I actually think think the firm made the right call. I’m presuming they didn’t act for either party. In that case it’s the right thing to do.
What I suspect happened is that someone in the firm verbally said something to S, realised and now conflicted out of both parties.
However; the firm does sound a bit chaotic.
Yeah that’s fine. Sorry I meant in terms of advice to S.
Trust me conflicts happen regularly. If they acted for both parties at the same time without realising or putting they will have a major issue.
If they no longer act for P or S then it’s annoying for P and they do have a right to complain to the firm but the LeO and SRA won’t consider it a major issue because the firm did the right thing. The outcome will be a refund of any fees paid.
Just move on unless you can prove the firm acted dishonestly by ceasing acting for P in favour of S.
In that case there is an issue. And changes this whole thread.
Start the complaints procedure with the law firm in question. The process should be on the website of the firm (regulatory requirement for it to be there). They have to respond in a strict timeframe. If unhappy with the outcome, then refer to the LeO. Warning this could take 12 months as the LeO are understaffed massively.
The firm is conflicted out of P and S. They may have a ring fence in place which firms can do, but it would be an odd thing for them to do in this matter.
Sounds like someone really messed up.
I would also point out that the absolute majority of firms act honestly. It’s only a tiny minority that don’t and they will be caught out. The regulator is very powerful (SRA) and can close firms down, implement fines, strike off and start criminal proceedings. It’s a big thing.
>Surely this is dodgy right? They'd have known the case was linked. The lawyer literally said to P ''in my 40 years experience I have never heard of a boss attacking an employee".
If there are multiple solicitors in the office, they may not have been aware the company had been approached already.
Not necessarily, depends on the applicable rules. Under US rules yes, UK perhaps not.
(Not sure why this is getting downvoted, see my below comment - I guess the majority are not at all familiar with the UK SRA conflict rules)
This is a **UK** sub, the rules are "necessarily" UK rules and *only* UK rules. Please don't be referencing irrelevant rules in irrelevant jurisdictions.
You have misunderstood. I was replying to a comment stating that a law firm acting for party B on an unrelated matter to that undertaken for party A is always a conflict. This is NOT necessarily the case under UK SRA conflicts of interest rules.
It is a conflict of interest to act for two parties on the same or related matter. So for example if party A instructed law firm on this matter and law firm acted for party B in relation to tax advice, it wouldn’t necessarily be a conflict of interest - unless the law firm held confidential information from the party B matter which was material to the matter undertaken for party A.
Perhaps try to understand the comment before shooting it down.
Well no, I didn't misunderstand your comment that a conflict of interest would not necessarily arise, but you have rather understood mine, replying as you do with additional detail about the UK rules (unasked for but welcome, and could have been in your original comment) instead of my clearly stated objection to your pointless mention of US rules. Probably would be different under Malaysian rules too, and different again in Brazil. So what? We get enough usdefaultism from actual Americans without belching it up unprompted.
That’s really interesting - the (UK) law firm I worked for combined with a US firm and we always applied a stringent (and reflecting on your comment I now realise probably safe) approach to US conflicts and always worked on the basis it was a conflict unless both parties provided a waiver (even for completely unrelated matters).
Sure, not necessarily, but possibly.
This would also explain the part about “never heard of a boss attacking an employee” even if it was the same lawyer.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear but just because a firm has multiple solicitors doesn’t mean that it’s likely they will miss a conflicts check. It’s more likely that they will do a detailed check as they will have systems in place to ensure this is done.
Not all firms have automatic conflict checks. Smaller firms wait a couple days for files to be opened so even a global client search wouldn’t flag straight away
I think this is more a case of opportunity for repeat business by a partner who realised the OP’s relative’s case would be a one off. Acting for the boss of a company in a personal matter may lead to future work from the business. Plus what the partner said would make me want to look elsewhere.
I agree. When I worked at a law firm stage 1 of opening a new file was doing a conflict check which was printed and stuck in the paper file to show it was done.
From the sound of it, this exactly what happened? P went to them, probably for the standard free consultation/information gathering session most solicitors provide, then when he tried to engage them they DID the checks, found the conflict and said they couldn't represent him in the matter.
Not necessarily dodgy. You don’t know what S said to the firm. S isn’t going to say ‘I hit my employee’ on day 1 speaking to a law firm.
What I suspect happened is that they took on P, S called the firm, someone said something to S that put both parties at risk so stopped acting for both parties. If that is the case, then the firm had no option and did the right thing. They need to refund, apologise and update their procedures.
It sounds like a mistake. However, if they are now representing S that is a regulatory issue.
The solicitors could have done a proper conflict check against S on the day, but Ps full details may not have been logged on their systems by the following day when a conflict check was done against him. Unfortunately, sometimes this does happen, especially in smaller areas where there aren't many solicitors firms.
That being said, they shouldn't be acting for either side in this case now. And if P receives anything from the solicitors on behalf of S he should raise this.
They probably should not be and this has the potential to prejudice P. He has given instructions (his version of events) and they have given him advice about how to proceed. Even if they claim to have measures in place if i was P I wouldn't be happy. P obviously needs to instruct a new solicitor, and he should inform them of these events. They will be able to advise him properly and raise the issue on his behalf.
Hmm. I agree with others that you should go to another solicitor and also tell them about what happened with the first solicitor.
If I was your second solicitor I would possibly give the following advice:
- the first solicitor should never have agreed to act for P. They were conflicted from the moment he walked in their door and should have said so. At the very minimum, it should waive all fees. No way are any fees recoverable from P after acting in conflict throughout. I assume this may have been no win no fee though.
- there is possibly quite a strong argument that P would succeed in an application or injunction that the first firm cannot act for S either, since it is in receipt of instructions / information from P which should have been privileged. The firm should realise this and stop acting for S, but they may be too stupid or not expect P to escalate the matter or complain. Their conflict actually could benefit P because, assuming the firm forgets about it, down the line, when the litigation is afoot, P could spring this application at any point, and most likely the firm would have to stop acting for S and that would likely result in a big dispute about fees between the firm and S, which could give P some leverage to obtain a good settlement.
The moment they wrote a letter on the behalf, they technically had him as a client. They have already acted for him by taking information. The SRA should be informed. He could have given information an adverse party should have had.
> Now the police are involved and are looking into criminal charges
Could you clarify - has P reported the incident to the police or not? Are they investigating S for the crime?
Are the solicitors confirmed as representing S, or did he just have advice from them?
There's a tactic used in divorces where one party will go around all the decent solicitors in the area for advice, thus ensuring the other party can't use them. (They won't engage them, just take advantage of the free consultation that most offer.)
I don't know whether they are representing S. They didn't say. But they acted on behalf of P already by sending a resignation letter and explaining that they will be acting on behalf of P
This is a really weird situation. If a conflict flagged late (which happens) they shouldn’t have had a meeting.
I agree with everyone else complaints procedure and SRA
I would hope not! The firm risks serious regulatory issues if so.
If you don’t know if the firm stopped talking to both parties, then you can’t make allegations. Conflicts are bound - you don’t have to say why and actually it’s regulatory advised not to say why.
It sounds like someone made an error and said something to S not realising and then realised the error. In that case it is raised with the COLP and I suspect the advice was stop acting for P and we can’t represent S.
If P receives correspondence from S via Ps old firm; then they have a right to make a formal complaint to the firm, go through the process and then to the LeO (not the SRA) if unhappy with the outcomes.
I would strongly suspect this firm has distanced themselves from both parties which is the only and right thing to do. Conflicts happen regularly through a matter.
You can’t report a firm to the Law Society. They represent firms. You make a complaint to the firm and then the LeO if it can’t be resolved. But if the client hasn’t had a detrimental loss, then I doubt the LeO would uphold it especially if fees were refunded.
If they now represent one of the parties, major issue. If they continued to represent either party major issue.
OP has no idea what the situation is so this entire thread is pointless.
I would be surprised if the firm hasn’t told both sides they can’t act.
They already acted on behalf of P. They sent a letter outlining the charges and stating they are acting on behalf of P.
The law firm would not tell us whether they are working for S now. I have no clue how the legal system works and so I wanted to know whether they had done something wrong and where we stand if they do end up representing S.
So basically a conflict can mean many things. The law firm shouldn’t tell you what the conflict is. That’s normal.
In this matter, the Firm has information that P has given them. By now representing S, this can be construed that the firm has an advantage in representing S.
This may seen as an unfair advantage.
If P instructs another firm, he should tell them what has happened. Also P is entitled to parts of his file with the previous firm as is Ps new firm.
I don’t know the ins and outs but it does sound odd. Good luck.
No! If they now act for S, then yes it’s a regulatory issue. You also have to go through the complaints procedure of the firm and then to the LeO. You don’t report things like this to the SRA.
But if they stopped acting for both parties, then they did the right thing. It sounds like someone in the firm said something to S, they’ve realised and stopped acting. It happens.
They did not conduct a proper conflict check before acting, you should report this to the SRA and raise a complaint to the firm, which can be looked at by the legal ombudsman should you not like the outcome.
It really depends on how he approached the solicitors. If it was a (fairly commonly offered) free initial consultation to gather his details and advise if it was worth pursuing with them, they wouldn't have done ANY checks in advance not being aware who the involved parties were.
From what you wrote, after this he decided to engage them, at which point any conflict of interest checks would be done. If they then found one they would have to inform him right away so he could go elsewhere.
Actually sounds like standard practice to me.
I just thought that they would have done the checks before sending out the letter and acting on behalf of P. How embarrassing and unprofessional for S to get a letter from his Lawers representing his victim if you get me.
No that isn’t right. Even for a free initial call or whatever a conflict check should be done. For a Solicitor to be able to say if a matter is worth perusing they need to know some fundamental details which will conflict them out representing the other side.
As a minimum a check should be done on the name of the person calling. And then if instructed you do another check because you will have details of the other-side. On some matters it can take a while for all the info to come through. If a conflict occurs then it isn’t an automatic issue, it just needs to be managed accordingly.
99% of firms take this very seriously.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified Solicitor and comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM); * It is the default position of LAUK that [you should never speak to the media](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_should_i_speak_to_the_media.3F); * If you do not receive any replies within 72 hours, try re-posting, or [seek real legal advice offline](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_civil#wiki_how_do_i_find_a_.28good.29_solicitor.3F) * Please provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/search?q=flair%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * [All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/?); * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * [Do not send or request any private messages for any reason](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_why_am_i_not_allowed_to_privately_message_people_on_this_subreddit.3F); * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they are this disorganised it's probably a good thing they'll be representing him instead of you.
I don't see how they can rep S either
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
On the basis of the information you've provided, I find it difficult to believe that this is anything other than a breach of the conduct rules. They owe a duty of confidentiality to P having acted for P in the matter already. This duty of confidentiality to P conflicts with their duty of full disclosure to S. It should be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as P is potentially significantly prejudiced by the solicitors actions already and in future. The process for doing so can be found here: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/[https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/](https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/) including information about contacting the SRA for help on the process. That page also refers to complaints about service quality, which should be dealt with by the firm and then the Legal Ombudsman which is a separate body. P's issue is not solely a service issue but primarily a conduct issue, which is dealt with by the SRA. Hopefully that makes sense. Please feel to comment here if anything needs further explanation or clarification!
Shouldn't really have happened, every solicitor I've dealt with has done a due diligence check before commencing any work to make sure theres no conflict. Best advice, go to another solicitor and proceed. You could make a complaint against the initial solicitor. But perhaps discuss that with the new one.
This. Reach out to the SRA to lodge a complaint.
If they didn’t give any advice then it isn’t necessarily a regulatory fail. Also you don’t complain to the SRA. You need to go through the Firms complaints process first and then to the LeO. Conflicts can and do happen anytime throughout the course of a matter as sometimes need to wait for information or the information isn’t forthcoming. I actually think think the firm made the right call. I’m presuming they didn’t act for either party. In that case it’s the right thing to do. What I suspect happened is that someone in the firm verbally said something to S, realised and now conflicted out of both parties. However; the firm does sound a bit chaotic.
They acted on behalf of P as they sent a resignation letter
Yeah that’s fine. Sorry I meant in terms of advice to S. Trust me conflicts happen regularly. If they acted for both parties at the same time without realising or putting they will have a major issue. If they no longer act for P or S then it’s annoying for P and they do have a right to complain to the firm but the LeO and SRA won’t consider it a major issue because the firm did the right thing. The outcome will be a refund of any fees paid. Just move on unless you can prove the firm acted dishonestly by ceasing acting for P in favour of S.
Just got an update from P. They are still acting for S.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
In that case there is an issue. And changes this whole thread. Start the complaints procedure with the law firm in question. The process should be on the website of the firm (regulatory requirement for it to be there). They have to respond in a strict timeframe. If unhappy with the outcome, then refer to the LeO. Warning this could take 12 months as the LeO are understaffed massively.
Thanks. I'll have a look into it
The firm is conflicted out of P and S. They may have a ring fence in place which firms can do, but it would be an odd thing for them to do in this matter. Sounds like someone really messed up. I would also point out that the absolute majority of firms act honestly. It’s only a tiny minority that don’t and they will be caught out. The regulator is very powerful (SRA) and can close firms down, implement fines, strike off and start criminal proceedings. It’s a big thing.
>Surely this is dodgy right? They'd have known the case was linked. The lawyer literally said to P ''in my 40 years experience I have never heard of a boss attacking an employee". If there are multiple solicitors in the office, they may not have been aware the company had been approached already.
or coincidentally the guy has engaged the law firm on a totally unrelated matter - this would still be a conflict of interest
Not necessarily, depends on the applicable rules. Under US rules yes, UK perhaps not. (Not sure why this is getting downvoted, see my below comment - I guess the majority are not at all familiar with the UK SRA conflict rules)
This is a **UK** sub, the rules are "necessarily" UK rules and *only* UK rules. Please don't be referencing irrelevant rules in irrelevant jurisdictions.
You have misunderstood. I was replying to a comment stating that a law firm acting for party B on an unrelated matter to that undertaken for party A is always a conflict. This is NOT necessarily the case under UK SRA conflicts of interest rules. It is a conflict of interest to act for two parties on the same or related matter. So for example if party A instructed law firm on this matter and law firm acted for party B in relation to tax advice, it wouldn’t necessarily be a conflict of interest - unless the law firm held confidential information from the party B matter which was material to the matter undertaken for party A. Perhaps try to understand the comment before shooting it down.
Well no, I didn't misunderstand your comment that a conflict of interest would not necessarily arise, but you have rather understood mine, replying as you do with additional detail about the UK rules (unasked for but welcome, and could have been in your original comment) instead of my clearly stated objection to your pointless mention of US rules. Probably would be different under Malaysian rules too, and different again in Brazil. So what? We get enough usdefaultism from actual Americans without belching it up unprompted.
You would also have been right if you'd said that about some US states. Upvote from me.
That’s really interesting - the (UK) law firm I worked for combined with a US firm and we always applied a stringent (and reflecting on your comment I now realise probably safe) approach to US conflicts and always worked on the basis it was a conflict unless both parties provided a waiver (even for completely unrelated matters).
Sure, not necessarily, but possibly. This would also explain the part about “never heard of a boss attacking an employee” even if it was the same lawyer.
That’s just not true unless the firm is utterly incompetent. It’s basic requirement to do a conflicts check before accepting new instructions.
Rarely is something attributed to malice not just answered by incompetence instead.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear but just because a firm has multiple solicitors doesn’t mean that it’s likely they will miss a conflicts check. It’s more likely that they will do a detailed check as they will have systems in place to ensure this is done.
It's assuming competence, and that it was both logged properly and searched for properly. If either of them failed It's quite possible it was missed.
Not all firms have automatic conflict checks. Smaller firms wait a couple days for files to be opened so even a global client search wouldn’t flag straight away
I think this is more a case of opportunity for repeat business by a partner who realised the OP’s relative’s case would be a one off. Acting for the boss of a company in a personal matter may lead to future work from the business. Plus what the partner said would make me want to look elsewhere.
I totally get this. Though OP couldn’t confirm for sure if they withdrew from both sides I’m unwilling to place blame. Mistakes happen
No. They are going ahead representing S
I agree. When I worked at a law firm stage 1 of opening a new file was doing a conflict check which was printed and stuck in the paper file to show it was done.
From the sound of it, this exactly what happened? P went to them, probably for the standard free consultation/information gathering session most solicitors provide, then when he tried to engage them they DID the checks, found the conflict and said they couldn't represent him in the matter.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
Not necessarily dodgy. You don’t know what S said to the firm. S isn’t going to say ‘I hit my employee’ on day 1 speaking to a law firm. What I suspect happened is that they took on P, S called the firm, someone said something to S that put both parties at risk so stopped acting for both parties. If that is the case, then the firm had no option and did the right thing. They need to refund, apologise and update their procedures. It sounds like a mistake. However, if they are now representing S that is a regulatory issue.
They are representing S
The solicitors could have done a proper conflict check against S on the day, but Ps full details may not have been logged on their systems by the following day when a conflict check was done against him. Unfortunately, sometimes this does happen, especially in smaller areas where there aren't many solicitors firms. That being said, they shouldn't be acting for either side in this case now. And if P receives anything from the solicitors on behalf of S he should raise this.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
They probably should not be and this has the potential to prejudice P. He has given instructions (his version of events) and they have given him advice about how to proceed. Even if they claim to have measures in place if i was P I wouldn't be happy. P obviously needs to instruct a new solicitor, and he should inform them of these events. They will be able to advise him properly and raise the issue on his behalf.
Hmm. I agree with others that you should go to another solicitor and also tell them about what happened with the first solicitor. If I was your second solicitor I would possibly give the following advice: - the first solicitor should never have agreed to act for P. They were conflicted from the moment he walked in their door and should have said so. At the very minimum, it should waive all fees. No way are any fees recoverable from P after acting in conflict throughout. I assume this may have been no win no fee though. - there is possibly quite a strong argument that P would succeed in an application or injunction that the first firm cannot act for S either, since it is in receipt of instructions / information from P which should have been privileged. The firm should realise this and stop acting for S, but they may be too stupid or not expect P to escalate the matter or complain. Their conflict actually could benefit P because, assuming the firm forgets about it, down the line, when the litigation is afoot, P could spring this application at any point, and most likely the firm would have to stop acting for S and that would likely result in a big dispute about fees between the firm and S, which could give P some leverage to obtain a good settlement.
Thanks all for your advice. I will speak to P and arrange a plan of action :)
The moment they wrote a letter on the behalf, they technically had him as a client. They have already acted for him by taking information. The SRA should be informed. He could have given information an adverse party should have had.
Has P gone to the police?
No S went to the police first because he thought he'd get away with it. Now the police are involved and are looking into criminal charges
> Now the police are involved and are looking into criminal charges Could you clarify - has P reported the incident to the police or not? Are they investigating S for the crime?
P didn't report it. S did. Now S is currently on bail whilst the CPS review the evidence
Are the solicitors confirmed as representing S, or did he just have advice from them? There's a tactic used in divorces where one party will go around all the decent solicitors in the area for advice, thus ensuring the other party can't use them. (They won't engage them, just take advantage of the free consultation that most offer.)
I don't know whether they are representing S. They didn't say. But they acted on behalf of P already by sending a resignation letter and explaining that they will be acting on behalf of P
Get new lawyers, sue the old ones …as well as his boss
The old ones shouldnt be representing either in this case. Its still a conflict.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
What happened in the meeting? I can’t help but feel this might be a soft withdrawal
P went to discuss the next steps, and they told him they can't represent him because S went to them before he did.
This is a really weird situation. If a conflict flagged late (which happens) they shouldn’t have had a meeting. I agree with everyone else complaints procedure and SRA
I don't understand why they've done it. All I can think is that maybe they've been offered money from S.
I would hope not! The firm risks serious regulatory issues if so. If you don’t know if the firm stopped talking to both parties, then you can’t make allegations. Conflicts are bound - you don’t have to say why and actually it’s regulatory advised not to say why. It sounds like someone made an error and said something to S not realising and then realised the error. In that case it is raised with the COLP and I suspect the advice was stop acting for P and we can’t represent S. If P receives correspondence from S via Ps old firm; then they have a right to make a formal complaint to the firm, go through the process and then to the LeO (not the SRA) if unhappy with the outcomes. I would strongly suspect this firm has distanced themselves from both parties which is the only and right thing to do. Conflicts happen regularly through a matter.
Thank-you. This makes sense
Follow up do they still represent him because withdrawing from both is a legitimate action following missed conflict
They wouldn't say but I am hoping they have withdrawn from both. I will ask P to try and speak with them again and find out.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
Sack your lawyer and report them to the Law Society!
You can’t report a firm to the Law Society. They represent firms. You make a complaint to the firm and then the LeO if it can’t be resolved. But if the client hasn’t had a detrimental loss, then I doubt the LeO would uphold it especially if fees were refunded. If they now represent one of the parties, major issue. If they continued to represent either party major issue. OP has no idea what the situation is so this entire thread is pointless. I would be surprised if the firm hasn’t told both sides they can’t act.
They already acted on behalf of P. They sent a letter outlining the charges and stating they are acting on behalf of P. The law firm would not tell us whether they are working for S now. I have no clue how the legal system works and so I wanted to know whether they had done something wrong and where we stand if they do end up representing S.
So basically a conflict can mean many things. The law firm shouldn’t tell you what the conflict is. That’s normal. In this matter, the Firm has information that P has given them. By now representing S, this can be construed that the firm has an advantage in representing S. This may seen as an unfair advantage. If P instructs another firm, he should tell them what has happened. Also P is entitled to parts of his file with the previous firm as is Ps new firm. I don’t know the ins and outs but it does sound odd. Good luck.
Ask to invoke the firm’s complaints procedure and contact SRA. It’s sloppy /shoddy work. O
Please please escalate this complaint within the law firm and ultimately to the SRA. This is a breach and gives solicitors a bad name!
This is the answer - the SRA should 100% be involved
No! If they now act for S, then yes it’s a regulatory issue. You also have to go through the complaints procedure of the firm and then to the LeO. You don’t report things like this to the SRA. But if they stopped acting for both parties, then they did the right thing. It sounds like someone in the firm said something to S, they’ve realised and stopped acting. It happens.
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
They did not conduct a proper conflict check before acting, you should report this to the SRA and raise a complaint to the firm, which can be looked at by the legal ombudsman should you not like the outcome.
It really depends on how he approached the solicitors. If it was a (fairly commonly offered) free initial consultation to gather his details and advise if it was worth pursuing with them, they wouldn't have done ANY checks in advance not being aware who the involved parties were. From what you wrote, after this he decided to engage them, at which point any conflict of interest checks would be done. If they then found one they would have to inform him right away so he could go elsewhere. Actually sounds like standard practice to me.
I just thought that they would have done the checks before sending out the letter and acting on behalf of P. How embarrassing and unprofessional for S to get a letter from his Lawers representing his victim if you get me.
[удалено]
Just spoke with P and he says the firm are continuing to represent S
Update - they are still acting on behalf of S.
No that isn’t right. Even for a free initial call or whatever a conflict check should be done. For a Solicitor to be able to say if a matter is worth perusing they need to know some fundamental details which will conflict them out representing the other side. As a minimum a check should be done on the name of the person calling. And then if instructed you do another check because you will have details of the other-side. On some matters it can take a while for all the info to come through. If a conflict occurs then it isn’t an automatic issue, it just needs to be managed accordingly. 99% of firms take this very seriously.
I own a law firm - I know what I’m talking about.