"I am aware of your expertise in the field of residential landlord and tenant law" ran the letter, "and am writing to you to explore whether we can work in partnership together". Happy to know that at least one person is aware of my expertise, I rang to find out more. However after speaking to the gentleman, my interest diminished considerably, in fact down to zero. The situation was this.
The company wants to offer a cheap and cheerful possession service to the public. However as they are not a firm of solicitors they cannot (as yet) issue the proceedings themselves. They therefore need a firm of solicitors to do this for them. "We will draft all the paperwork" said my correspondent, "all you have to do is issue the proceedings and then, if necessary, instruct the bailiffs".
Sounds good? Well not really. The claims would be issued under my firms name. So if there was anything wrong with them and a negligence claim followed, it would be my professional indemnity insurance which would be on the line. Therefore I would have to check all the paperwork before issue to make sure that it was correct. So there would really be the same amount of work as if I were drafting it up myself. And they were offering to pay me £50.
When I first heard him say £50 I found it difficult to believe that I had heard him correctly. For that I would have to receive the paperwork, open a file, check it was correct, send it off to court, log the details on receipt, instruct the agent to attend the hearing, and then deal with their report. That would be for the straightforward cases where there is no defence filed. As gently as I could, I told him that it was not something I was really interested in.
I don’t know if he will find a firm prepared to work for him. I suspect not. In fact I would hope that no solicitors firm will be prepared to issue proceedings which have not been drafted by a partner or member of staff. And although the company were offering to ‘work in partnership’ I feel pretty sure that if there were any Tesco law type rule changes which allowed them to issue the claims themselves, the 'partnership' would be fairly swiftly ended.
But is this the future I ask myself? Large financial organisations mopping up all the customers and using solicitors at knock down rates, to do the grunt work? Well hopefully not in my firm.
But it would be interesting to know if any other firms have had similar approaches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has voted unanimously to introduce amendments designed to strengthen the regulatory framework govern...
-
Figures from the DCA show that landlord possession claims were 20% down during the last quarter. Co-incidentally this was the first quarter...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
Earlier this year, in Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 261 , the Court of Appeal declined to follow the position, adopted in Re Guidezone [2...
-
Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk . There is still quite a bit of confusion regarding the recent deci...
-
Like many people I suspect, I was concerned to read the recent BBC report about glass ceilings which, the report said, means that "to...
-
In Gregson v HAE Trustees Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1006 (Ch) a so-called "dog-leg" claim was brought against the directors of a ...
-
Public limited companies in Norway were given until the start of this year to implement rules designed to increase the representation of wom...
-
The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner is investigating after old medical records were found in a dumpster behind a coffee shop by...
-
Today, April 6, is an important date for aficionados of the Companies Act 2006 and anyone else interested in the Government's programme...
Comments
Post a comment on: Tesco Law in action