The Lemon Fool

Bit of a strange one, I'd appreciate any guidance or advice.

My husband & I had an offer accepted on a property in early 2021. We engaged an Associate Solicitor at a well-regarded firm local to where the house was, let's call her Sally. We opted for a solicitor as opposed to a conveyancer because there was a business linked to the property which we planned to take on.

The entire purchase process was a complete nightmare, which dragged on for about 21 months before the sellers finally acknowledged the property wasn't actually sellable (issues over access & clashes with their neighbour who owned the shared roadway were the final straw). There were also myriad other things that came up throughout the process.

Sally, throughout, was excellent. She was exceptionally efficient, responsive & even on holiday would deal with issues as they arose. She warned us that our costs were increasing as time went on & advised us a couple of times to pull out of the purchase which we declined to do. We thought it was our dream house so clung on in the hope it would resolve itself.

When the purchase finally collapsed late last year, Sally had a few friendly conversations with me (having been very business-like the rest of the time, presumably as she was billing us for every call), sent us her (enormous) invoice along with her time-bookings (i.e. every email, call etc.) & then offered to reduce her cost pretty much by 50%. We appreciated this gesture of goodwill & fully intended to utilise her services again when we found another house.

Yesterday we got an email from the firm informing us that Sally (who had worked there for 24 years) has been "diverting" (aka stealing) payments intended for the firm, including ours & there is an open Police investigation ongoing.

To say we're shocked doesn't quite cover it. I keep thinking back to see if there were any red flags, but there just weren't any that I can think of...if you can't trust your solicitor, who can you trust?! I assumed (naively perhaps) that she had the authority to reduce the cost if she thought it would buy the company some goodwill & future clients. It's thrown up a lot of questions. We paid less than she told us we owed, based on the time accounts she sent us, but how accurate were those? If she was willing to defraud her company of course she could have just made up any number to tell us.

We feel horribly let down & disappointed. Of course we'll cooperate with the investigation but we're not sure quite where to go for advice or even if there's likely to be any recourse.

Thanks for reading, any advice would be gratefully received.

I have no experience to call on to offer any specific advice but my question is do you have legal expenses cover on your home insurance. It may cover your costs should you need to engage a solicitor to advise you once you know more about the implications, if any, for you.

iambic wrote:Bit of a strange one...
Thanks for reading, any advice would be gratefully received.

Gosh, as you say, not what one expects.

You'll need to claim against the solicitors. Their Professional Indemnity policy will pick up the tab, or more likely the solicitor will pick it up as the claim will be below the excess.

V8

.....if you can't trust your solicitor, who can you trust?!

Indeed.

An Aberdeen solicitor has gone on trial accused of embezzling £120,000 from a vulnerable elderly woman.

John Sinclair is alleged to have removed the sum of money from various bank accounts belonging to a wealthy 90-year-old client after she was diagnosed with dementia and placed in a nursing home.

The 69-year-old lawyer had been granted power of attorney over the woman’s finances and welfare following her diagnosis in 2014.

Innocent until proven guilty though.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... -aberdeen/

Tedx wrote:Innocent until proven guilty though.

fair enough
but I prefer
no smoke without fire

I'm not clear what your loss has been.

Are you saying you paid the 50% discounted bill and as Sally stole it, the firm of solicitors are still pressing you for payment of their bill?

Or the firm is asking for payment of the 50% discount, saying Sally was not authorized to offer it?

Or something else perhaps?

Mike4 wrote:I'm not clear what your loss has been.

Are you saying you paid the 50% discounted bill and as Sally stole it, the firm of solicitors are still pressing you for payment of their bill?

Or the firm is asking for payment of the 50% discount, saying Sally was not authorized to offer it?

Or something else perhaps?

That's kind of the question - how on earth do we find out how much we should have paid? The firm aren't asking us for any money, just to cooperate with the investigation.

We were obviously happy to pay her company for Sally's services, but as the invoice she sent us was (apparently) fraudulent, she didn't bill us through her company & we don't know where the numbers she gave us came from or whether she was actually acting in our best interests throughout (which is what we were paying her to do).

The 50% discount is kind of irrelevant as it doesn't seem like the company has any record of what she billed us, or that anything is outstanding on our account with them, she closed it off when we settled our account.

We're just a bit confused about who to ask for advice on this. We could try another (this time hopefully trustworthy...) solicitor but I wondered if anyone on here might have a good suggestion we hadn't thought of.

IF the invoice you received from Sally was on the Firm's notepaper and you paid the discounted figure by cheque or whatever (maybe electronically per details on the invoice?) then you have acted responsibly and in good faith. A 50% discounted time charge may be unusual but I find that often charges per the timesheets solicitors produce are discounted and it seems you got decent advice from Sally.

You appear not to have been asked to pay the outstanding invoice again (why would you?) so provided the advice you got was reasonable and it sounds as though it was, and you are not being asked for any more money, it does not sound like your problem. Losses will fall on the firm. I see no reason why you need any legal advice at the moment. Just co-operate with any police investigation as a witness and put it behind you.

Whether she had any authority or not to offer the discount is not your problem either.

Dod

A layman's perspective...

It seems the issues with the property were there anyway, so regardless of the solicitor you used, the sale wouldn't have proceeded. Is that right?

If so, the only issue you might have is whether you were overcharged. If the bill (after the 50% discount) seems excessive it might be worth pursuing. If you have a detailed breakdown and it seems reasonable, my instinct would be to put it behind me and move on, though obviously cooperate with any enquiries if asked. It is all too easy to get obsessed with what ifs that can't be changed.

Dod101 has as usual covered most bases - however one point.

You state 'she didn't bill us through her company'. So what entity did you actually pay for the services received? An bank account in her name or another company? I assume that paperwork received from her prior to the invoice was on the notepaper of her erstwhile practice. It's just that the police may ask you about this and why you had not queried this discrepancy.

T7

terminal7 wrote:Dod101 has as usual covered most bases - however one point.

You state 'she didn't bill us through her company'. So what entity did you actually pay for the services received? An bank account in her name or another company? I assume that paperwork received from her prior to the invoice was on the notepaper of her erstwhile practice. It's just that the police may ask you about this and why you had not queried this discrepancy.

T7

This is bothering me too. I'm not sure the OP from the way they write, draws a distinction between the firm of solicitors (in which Sally was/is presumably a partner) issuing a bill, and Sally herself issuing a bill. But I get the impression no money was paid due to Sally getting arrested and the OP being contacted by the police in the interim and informed of the fraud!

And another thought, is the OP satisfied all the difficulties cropping up with the purchase really and genuinely existed? Or was Sally the only conduit by which these difficulties were communicated? It is not unknown for estate agents to make up stuff to scupper a sale (don't ask how I know), so I'm now wondering if Sally had the objective of making this sale fall through so she could buy the place herself, if it looked a bargain.

Cynical thought yes, but, you know....

terminal7 wrote:Dod101 has as usual covered most bases - however one point.

You state 'she didn't bill us through her company'. So what entity did you actually pay for the services received? An bank account in her name or another company? I assume that paperwork received from her prior to the invoice was on the notepaper of her erstwhile practice. It's just that the police may ask you about this and why you had not queried this discrepancy.

T7

Thanks T7. When I said she didn't bill us through her company, I just meant the firm have no record of the money being due from us & certainly didn't receive the money we transferred so presumably she did that bit "privately" & without their knowledge.

The invoice was on company-headed paper & absolutely looked legitimate & she gave me the bank details over the phone with the company name as the payee, telling me they were in the process of changing their account. With hindsight, I wish this had seemed suspicious but given she was a solicitor & it's usually a good idea to confirm bank details over the phone if there's any doubt, I (unfortunately) had no reason to suspect anything.

Thanks to everyone who's replied. I think we'll hold on for now & see how things progress. Still can't quite believe it. We're in the process of buying another house now, using a different solicitor from another firm. When it comes to paying him he'll probably wonder why we suddenly want to triple-check everything...

iambic

iambic wrote:

terminal7 wrote:Dod101 has as usual covered most bases - however one point.

You state 'she didn't bill us through her company'. So what entity did you actually pay for the services received? An bank account in her name or another company? I assume that paperwork received from her prior to the invoice was on the notepaper of her erstwhile practice. It's just that the police may ask you about this and why you had not queried this discrepancy.

T7

Thanks T7. When I said she didn't bill us through her company, I just meant the firm have no record of the money being due from us & certainly didn't receive the money we transferred so presumably she did that bit "privately" & without their knowledge.

The invoice was on company-headed paper & absolutely looked legitimate & she gave me the bank details over the phone with the company name as the payee, telling me they were in the process of changing their account. With hindsight, I wish this had seemed suspicious but given she was a solicitor & it's usually a good idea to confirm bank details over the phone if there's any doubt, I (unfortunately) had no reason to suspect anything.

Thanks to everyone who's replied. I think we'll hold on for now & see how things progress. Still can't quite believe it. We're in the process of buying another house now, using a different solicitor from another firm. When it comes to paying him he'll probably wonder why we suddenly want to triple-check everything...

iambic

I hope all goes well this time. At least you have useful experience to help you. No point in crying over what might have been.

Dod

What I guess happened is that when she did work for you, she did not put the hours down on the firm’s time recording system, so the firm had no basis on which to bill you or indeed to know that they had done work for you.

She then issued an invoice which did not go through the firm’s billing system so there was no record you owed them money.

She then collected the payment without it passing through the firm’s books or bank account.

She has defrauded her firm, but you have no blame or liability and are the innocent party. If anything the firm might owe you something if you felt the
bill was too high!

If you are content with the amount you paid for the legal help you received, do nothing. It’s not your problem.

iambic wrote:

terminal7 wrote:Dod101 has as usual covered most bases - however one point.

You state 'she didn't bill us through her company'. So what entity did you actually pay for the services received? An bank account in her name or another company? I assume that paperwork received from her prior to the invoice was on the notepaper of her erstwhile practice. It's just that the police may ask you about this and why you had not queried this discrepancy.

T7

Thanks T7. When I said she didn't bill us through her company, I just meant the firm have no record of the money being due from us & certainly didn't receive the money we transferred so presumably she did that bit "privately" & without their knowledge.

The invoice was on company-headed paper & absolutely looked legitimate & she gave me the bank details over the phone with the company name as the payee, telling me they were in the process of changing their account. With hindsight, I wish this had seemed suspicious but given she was a solicitor & it's usually a good idea to confirm bank details over the phone if there's any doubt, I (unfortunately) had no reason to suspect anything.

Thanks to everyone who's replied. I think we'll hold on for now & see how things progress. Still can't quite believe it. We're in the process of buying another house now, using a different solicitor from another firm. When it comes to paying him he'll probably wonder why we suddenly want to triple-check everything...

iambic

That would not work with our bank software, it matches the account number /sort with the business name , so if business name was firm name but bank account was individual's it would flag this when setting up the payee.

scrumpyjack wrote:What I guess happened is that when she did work for you, she did not put the hours down on the firm’s time recording system, so the firm had no basis on which to bill you or indeed to know that they had done work for you.

She then issued an invoice which did not go through the firm’s billing system so there was no record you owed them money.

She then collected the payment without it passing through the firm’s books or bank account.

She has defrauded her firm, but you have no blame or liability and are the innocent party. If anything the firm might owe you something if you felt the
bill was too high!

If you are content with the amount you paid for the legal help you received, do nothing. It’s not your problem.

As someone always after a peaceful life, I sort of agree.

But, having seen how we are constantly treated like sh*t by banks, solicitors, estate agents etc with their AML, KYC, due diligence etc, I think it only right that matters like this be brought out into the open.

Just another lesson that it is WE who should be doing due diligence etc.

Steve

Please go easy on me for possibly overthinking this but do you know that the email is from the firm, I'd be inclined to ask for a letter, and do you know it to be true that there is a Police investigation in progress?

if you do nothing else make certain that you have advised the law society of the situation.
they will doubtless already be aware if the police are involved but its important that YOU have a note to them of your position

pje16 wrote:

Tedx wrote:Innocent until proven guilty though.

fair enough
but I prefer
no smoke without fire

Guilty: Aberdeen solicitor embezzled £120,000 from 90-year-old woman with dementia

Jurors heard how John Sinclair used his power over the nursing home resident's finances to transfer large amounts of money from her bank accounts into his.


He will be sentenced next month.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... a-patient/