Quote:
Originally Posted by macafee2
If you take legal advice and are told x and the other person take legal advice and is told y, it would seem that one of the solicitors is wrong.
If it goes to court, why should the client that loses, have to pay legal costs, that should be down to the losing solicitor to pay if the case is lost due to a legal reason, such as "such and such case sets the precedence for this issue."
I'm jot thinking no win no fee, it sounds as if I am but i'm not
If the loser has to pay what is the incentive for the solicitor to do a good job??
similar to taking a car to a garage for not starting, they change the battery, then the carb, then the alternator, then the etc etc
if the fix does not work why should cust pay?
macafee2
|
Because a solicitor or barrister will never give you a 100% guarantee of succcess. They'll give you a probability of success with a warning that you might lose and ask if you still want to proceed. Good luck getting a case to court if your legal team doesn't think it has a good chance of success (unless you've got plenty of upfront cash). Losing in court is bad for their career prospects - so taking a case with little chance of winning (in their view) doesn't happen without big motivation (cash £££).
At the end of the day the decision to go to court is not down to the legal team (unless you're penniless!). It's down to you - as long as you can afford the costs.