If your lawyer fails, sue him; It's all there should be to it
DONALD REID
Suppose you engage a decorator to paint your sitting room and he makes a mess of it. What could you do? If you went to your solicitor he'd send a warning letter then follow that up, if you so instruct, with court action. If the process of pursuing the tradesman was going to be too lengthy or costly you might decide not to bother. Either your solicitor will get you a result, or you'd chalk the matter off to experience.
Now suppose you instruct a solicitor to carry out a piece of work and similarly suffer disappointment. What do you do? Essentially the same. You find a solicitor (obviously not the same one!) to threaten and if necessary court action; you make a judgement whether or not the process too will be lengthy and expensive. It’s the same principle: if someone does bad work they get sued and deserve to be sued.
Now perhaps you are thinking that solicitors are a self-serving coterie. That is when one of their number is complained about they close ranks and refuse to go after him. Take it from me, that is not true. Solicitors are happily suing each other all the time all over the place. For example owing to an unfounded innuendo by Parliament in a discussion paper on complaints against solicitors, the Law Society of Scotland is having to scurry around asking members if they give advice on claims against other solicitors. This exercise is a complete waste of time. Cathy Jamieson, the Justice Minister knows thatl. But why should the truth get in the way of lawyer bashing. The only real doubters are the uninformed and the unsuccessful. The bitter, chip-on-the-shoulder types who won’t listen to good advice and blame the adviser.
Unlike someone who has employed a bad decorator, though, the person offended by a solicitor’s service has an additional weapon. He can raise a complaint with the Law Society, alleging the solicitor concerned has been guilty of “Inadequate Professional Service”. What puzzles me is that the received wisdom in the profession that this is a good thing - that it could save a solicitor from facing a more damaging negligence claim. This is lost on me, as the two remedies are not mutually exclusive.
Despite the fertile ground for redress, the Holyrood Hawks aren't satisfied. The fires upon which vulnerable legal flesh may be sacrificed are still not hot enough. Hence the re-examination, for the umpteenth time, of the complaints system.
The temptation for ordinary solicitors is to say: “Everybody hates us – we don’t care”. But why is such vitriol generated there may be bad and incompetent lawyers and they have their victims. There are bad decorators, bankers, teachers yet none generate anger, or such political capital for the elected representatives who bully them. Historically the practice of law was seen as a privilege. . But is it still? Successive governments have dismantled much of the professional ethos by introducing and insisting upon open competition within a “market” driven by price. The result is an environment where respect for one’s fellow professionals tends to take a back seat to cost effectiveness and market share. There is no point in lamenting this – it is the way things are. My point is this: essential features of professionalism are marginalised, and lawyers ply their trade like any other, why are they more accountable, and subject to more controls, than others. If your lawyer fails you, sue him. That’s all there should be to it.
