Statement of Claim against me

[Y33]

triton,

You need to go back to original time frame of phone call initiating inquiry and phone call to stop. You did mention that you agreed to go to their office before you made the second call. what was this time frame as it appears to be the most critical part of the information missing.



If you hadn't cancelled the meeting what would you have expected them to have ready for you at the meeting? Would you expect them to ask for the information you had already provided or to have some paperwork already started?

 

[TheAnalyst]

I do not really understand those suggest to pay for it. It is very clear the law is on your side. You never gave them the damn request as you suggested at the beginning and you have challenged when you received the invoice. Why are your people afraid of fighting? Probably, that is why the bully always winds.

 

[josko]

That makes me cranky.

I can't offer advice and I would be like you and think $550 is not worth the hassle but I would certainly argue the case venomently.

I deal with QLD and NSW Solicitors and have not found a NSW Solicitor that doesn't charge the earth yet.

Solicitors abuse their position in society.

Regards JO

 

[ezza]

As soon as Tax invoice arrived in mail & urgently contacted the office & spoke to solicitors administration asking them questions to why did they proceed with searches when I never asked them to go ahead.

What was their response?

 

[TheAnalyst]

I do not really understand those suggest to pay for it. It is very clear the law is on your side. You never gave them the damn request as you suggested at the beginning and you have challenged when you received the invoice. Why are your people afraid of fighting? Probably, that is why the bully always winds.

 

[Perp]

I do not really understand those suggest to pay for it. It is very clear the law is on your side.

Because maybe, like me, they're not so sure the law is on George's side; the content of that initial phone call is really crucial. If the solicitor's firm had reasonable grounds for believing they were instructed to do certain things for George, and they did them before being instructed otherwise, then they are legally able to demand payment for services rendered.

If George's phone call really was as simple as "how do I go about selling a property and how much do you charge to prepare a sales contract?", then I'd agree that he shouldn't have to pay, and I understand why most are inclined to side with George. But I'm trying to imagine in what context George would have given them his full name and property address, other than in the context of instructing them to do some work on his behalf. If George had no desire for them to do any work, didn't he wonder why they wanted that information?

If you ring up an accountant, solicitor, or similar professional, and ask for their advice, you have to expect to pay for it.

 

[Raddles]

Hi there Tracey

ordinarily I would agree if you ask for advice - you pay for it
but because this is a conveyance query - and most solicitors will ask for funds to pay for the outlays/disbursements
I have a feeling they were overstepping the mark by incurring those costs

Most solicitors try to avoid having a large overdraft and generally like to get funds in before they incur the sort of costs Triton has been discussing.

I tend to agree with others who think it is worth taking on - the legal commissioner is a good one to go into bat with you - if ever you have these sort of problems.
thanks

 

[Perp]

OK, I defer to raddles... she's the legal costs guru!

So am I right in saying that you think if you'd asked for advice and had work done on another matter, you'd probably have to pay, but because it's conveyancing and normally does involve a written agreement and payment for searches etc, George could argue that he had no expectation that they'd have begun work? Fair enough.

 

[TheAnalyst]

Because maybe, like me, they're not so sure the law is on George's side; the content of that initial phone call is really crucial. If the solicitor's firm had reasonable grounds for believing they were instructed to do certain things for George, and they did them before being instructed otherwise, then they are legally able to demand payment for services rendered.

If George's phone call really was as simple as "how do I go about selling a property and how much do you charge to prepare a sales contract?", then I'd agree that he shouldn't have to pay, and I understand why most are inclined to side with George. But I'm trying to imagine in what context George would have given them his full name and property address, other than in the context of instructing them to do some work on his behalf. If George had no desire for them to do any work, didn't he wonder why they wanted that information?

If you ring up an accountant, solicitor, or similar professional, and ask for their advice, you have to expect to pay for it.

Not really. All fees if you want to charge have to be agreed upon upfront in any case, in particular this case. For convenycing, even if you signed to use them, you can still change them because an appointment must be formal --- you can ask a settlement agent on this.

 

[TheAnalyst]

OK, I defer to raddles... she's the legal costs guru!

So am I right in saying that you think if you'd asked for advice and had work done on another matter, you'd probably have to pay, but because it's conveyancing and normally does involve a written agreement and payment for searches etc, George could argue that he had no expectation that they'd have begun work? Fair enough.

When an argument arouses, the court looks at the doubt on who is reasonable. George did not have any commitment and if there is any ambiguty, he already raised when he received the invoice. He will have enough grounds to be believed by a sane person.

 

[Spectre]

I think if you can show reasonable doubt that the sol jumped the gun then you'd go to court.

- make sure you put it to the judge about what kind of precedent they would be setting?

IMO a solicitor would be an absolute doof to order searches etc without an agreement signed. But if they did some work or provided advice for say 30 minutes then different story - i.e. not a 2 minute chat but semi-deep.

I'd love to be able to invoice for some of that as well.

 

[Y33]

There are valid points for both sides.

The crucial information that will most likely decide the result is what I asked previously about time frame between initial contact and second call and what was expected if the meeting had took place. I base this on having sat on tribunals/hearings in the pass for other matters involving similar situations with govt departments etc. Once I have that information and the times when any searches were done I would formalize an opinion. Time frame of events are always a critical element in decision making and why I suggest document everything following a time frame format.

The onus is on them to show they started working on your requests/information before second call. This is information you should ask them to show at any hearings and if they don't have it, should go in your favor. Don't ask for it beforehand as it gives them opportunity to produce one.

For those that want to say no contract has been formalized you need to consider the situation of when you order something to be delivered COD. If you cancel the order before the delivery goes out you don't have to pay delivery charges but if you cancel the order after it goes out and before it arrives at your place you are still liable for delivery costs.

 

[Pushka]

I think you just have to weigh up the thought (and costs) of going to Court versus paying the money. It really will become a He said/she said kind of issue and it would be hard to determine which way the Judge (who is also a lawyer) would decide in favour of. Kind of sucky I know, but chalk it up to experience maybe?

 

[Raddles]

Hi there
there is every chance this will never get to a hearing date in a court.

To the armchair legal experts - can I just say there are some powerful presumptions in George's favour.

Firstly in NSW there are rules about legal costs that have to be complied with:

you need a cost agreement unless the matter is urgent or is under $750

solicitors have an obligation to disclose information about how they bill before they bill a client - not just issue a tax invoice

conveyancing disbursements such as those billed usually are not done so after a telephone call - usually a client is asked to deposit funds into the solicitor's trust account as they don't want the overdraft fees

a client has 12 months to contest a bill - by sending this statement of claim within 12 months - the solicitor is actually acting contra to requirements in the law

George - take them on - issue a Defence saying they did not have your instructions to incur the outlays/disbursements - and get the Legal Commissioner to help you have the claim withdrawn.

thanks

 

[Strannik]

For those that want to say no contract has been formalized you need to consider the situation of when you order something to be delivered COD. If you cancel the order before the delivery goes out you don't have to pay delivery charges but if you cancel the order after it goes out and before it arrives at your place you are still liable for delivery costs.

I think it's more like - you ask for a quote, or a description of goods and they send you the goods instead. Should you pay for the freight? Of course not!

 

[Perp]

All fees if you want to charge have to be agreed upon upfront in any case, in particular this case. For convenycing, even if you signed to use them, you can still change them because an appointment must be formal --- you can ask a settlement agent on this.

you need a cost agreement unless the matter is urgent or is under $750

This is where I'm confused. I accept Raddles' assertion that George has precedent on his side, but I'm still unclear whether you do or do not need a cost agreement signed if performing conveyancing under $750. Or is the assumption that conveyancing is never under $750? (My conveyancing bills are usually less than this in QLD, but I know some other states are much more expensive.)

 

[Raddles]

Hi there
because NSW is so much more that QLD when it comes to conveyancing - would think very few would be under $750 - the different approach of having to exchange contracts just adds to the costs
so I would say NSW practitioners are asking for trouble if they don't get a cost agreement signed
also could I say even in the urgent matters - practitioners do have an obligation to get an agreement signed ASAP once the initial urgency is over
thanks

 

[Perp]

because NSW is so much more that QLD when it comes to conveyancing - would think very few would be under $750

A-ha! Thanks, Raddles, that's crystal-clear.

I was thinking that George's bill is under $750, but I guess the point is that's only because the job was only partially completed. Am I right in suggesting that because the completed job would have been (well) over the $750, a cost agreement would have been required before any part of the job was initiated, right? So even though George's bill is under $750, the job would have been more and should have been the subject of a cost agreement.

 

[Raddles]

Hi there Oz
yes - because most conveyances would likely exceed the $750 it is better to get a cost agreement signed or
recently what has been happening - because sometimes clients don't sign the agreements - a copy of the proposed agreement is sent out - there is usually a clause saying something like - if we continue to act in this matter we will be adopting the provisions of the attached agreement - and the client is estopped from denying the terms of the agreement - because they haven't done anything to object to it.
thanks

 

[TheAnalyst]

I think you just have to weigh up the thought (and costs) of going to Court versus paying the money. It really will become a He said/she said kind of issue and it would be hard to determine which way the Judge (who is also a lawyer) would decide in favour of. Kind of sucky I know, but chalk it up to experience maybe?

I do not understand why you would like to have this attitude towards bullies. Kicking the *** is needed as Trump says.