Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Up for an Update? Padden v Bevan Ashford rides again!


Diligent readers of the blog will remember me commenting on Padden v. Bevan Ashford Solicitors. You can quickly refresh your memory on the case revolving around the free half hour here:


You’ll never guess what’s back in the courts – 


That is correct, the re-trial of Padden v Bevan Ashford has taken place, and back to the Court of Appeal again! 

My gripe with the first Court of Appeal decision was that I considered that it just didn’t have regard to the realities of giving  a half hour free advice.  The course the Appeal Court said should have been followed just doesn’t reflect the realities of day to day life in the High Street.  Reading between the lines of the HHJ Vosper’s decision, which was under appeal, I have a feeling he had at least some sympathy with that view.  He couldn’t go behind the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, that the newly qualified solicitor (now known to be a Ms. Shinner) had been deficient in her first meeting with Mrs. Padden, but at paragraph 16 we get a different flavour of that first meeting.

The judge notes that the claimant was “evidently distressed and in a rush to be back home as soon as possible”. So quite how much attention Mrs. Padden was giving to what Ms. Shinner had to tell her is doubtful.  Despite this, Ms Shinner took pity and decided to help. A human lawyer!  One who wanted to help a person in distress – not quite conforming to popular stereotype, one might say, but more common than is generally realised.
“Ms Shinner advised the claimant that she was not doing the right thing, and advised her not to sign any documents. Ms Shinner must have based that advice on her appreciation that paying off Mrs Partridge might not stop a criminal prosecution.” So the judge, upon looking with care at what happened at that first meeting realises that Ms. Shinner’s advice was focussed more closely on the key issue than perhaps the Court of Appeal first time round had realised.  If only Mrs. Padden had chosen to follow that advice!  Both she and her solicitors would have been so much better off.

The judge also said, “I find that Ms Shinner told the claimant that she was taking a huge or a big risk, and the risk to which Ms Shinner was referring was the risk that Mr Padden would face criminal charges despite the claimant's giving away her interest in the assets.” I guess this is as close to saying that she wasn’t so very negligent as a judge could reasonably get, given the earlier decision, and I commend this analysis.

Now what happened after Ms. Shinner ended her involvement was rather more of a problem, unfortunately.  A colleague wrote to confirm that “I am satisfied that this signatory understands the nature of this Deed and its meaning and effect and to the best of my knowledge has freely consented to it without undue influence or duress or in reliance upon misrepresentation.” (emphasis added).  It’s the italicised section which really seems problematic.  What’s more, he doesn’t seem to have made a note of that meeting, so he couldn’t remember what happened at it.  This was a very serious certification to have made and the lack of a record of that advice was critical.  The whole episode shows that routine certifications should not be readily available.  A solicitor has to spend serious time finding out what the whole transaction is about.  A serious charge should be made as there are serious consequences for the solicitor who gets it wrong – over £67,000 worth of consequences, actually!  Oh and the other thing?  Free advice?  So many of us now will just say no. 

Blog Disclaimer: Nothing in www.austinkempfamilylaw.blogspot.com blog should be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice upon any family law related matter then you should instruct a solicitor. Any links to other blogs or web sites are provided for convenience only and Austin Kemp Solicitors cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of such linked blogs/sites.

20 comments:

  1. Whilst I have every sympathy with the solicitor concerned, one question keeps presenting itself in my mind: Why did she take it on?

    In order to to a job properly, time must be allocated and a client who cannot wait should be turned away.

    If I went to a restaurant and ordered fresh pork or chicken and demanded that it must be served to me in 5 minutes lest I miss my train home - the chef would refuse to fulfill the order on the grounds that s/he could not do the job properly and would probably poison me into the bargain.

    The same principle applies when a client disinstructs their solicitor the day/week before a trial starts. Woe betide the solicitor who agrees to take this on without having a good look at the file first (and vetting the potential client to ensure that they are not mad and have paid their previous solicitor's bills).

    Ms Shinner may well have been benevolent but for heaven's sake, don't work to the timescale set by the client unless the job can be done in that time and, getting back to the conclusion of the post, especially if you are doing it for free!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the Information you shared and This case should be consider as a lesson.

    Regards
    Andrew Felix
    http://www.LawFirmsMarketing.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, at it again huh? Who do you think will come out on top from this case? I'm really curious how this lawyer dispute will turn out. I'm working with a case right now with my lawyers. What are some things to keep in mind to alleviate my stress about the outcome?
    Celine | http://www.bergermannlaw.com/familylaw.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. By Katz & Contacts the knowledgeable, awareness divorce case and even loved ones rules legal representative can certainly reliable you'll, train you'll with the help of information that may provides a cure for the particular future. Any qualified individuals with the help of go through and even credential get treasure making you thru the particular complicated procedure of one's situation.
    http://katzassociateslaw.com/family-lawyers/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aside from divorce, are there any other types of cases that attorneys work on? I know that custody battles are also apart of the divorce category, but what else? I am interested in the field and would love to learn more. http://www.donphelpsfamilylawvancouver.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for sharing brilliant sources with us!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wanna thanks to a great extent for providing such informative and qualitative material therefore often.Johnston

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice blog, thanks for sharing the information. I will come to look for update. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This site is excellent and so is how the subject matter was explained. I also like some of the comments too. Waiting for the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I continuously continue coming to your website once more simply in case you have posted new contents.

    Http://joeandmartin.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. I’m eager to find the valuable information and for me this is the right place to get the good stuff.

    Joe and Martin

    ReplyDelete
  12. Quickly this site will indisputably be famous among all blogging people, because of its fastidious articles or reviews.

    exblueprint

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is really informative post for everyone and we will surely visiting this website. We are also in same field and welcome you to visit our website.

    https://uslanlaw.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you so much for discussing this case with us. And I agree that it is better to stay apart than living in a stressed relationship...

    ReplyDelete
  16. After reading this case I can understand that this case was really tough for you but the way you handled the situation in front of judge is really appreciable. Keep solving cases with this spirit and keep sharing cases with us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By handling such critical situation you proved that you are a true professional. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Florida residents rely on Michael Lechtman to represent their interests in difficult situations involving the issues in life that matter the most.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete