Solicitor thinks I don’t have a strong case
What should I do? My solicitor thinks that the reasonable adjustments I asked for from the defendant are not due to my disabilities but due to my study commitments which I disagree with. I have now raised it with my solicitor but I feel like she will just dig her heels in deeper. Should I just allow her to close my case and get a second opinion?
Will civil legal aid allow me to access another solicitor even though I had one on this case already?
Do solicitors ever change their mind once they’ve conducted their merits assessment even if you have valid points to raise?
I also have a limitation date coming up which is just 4 weeks away.
Feeling depressed
Will civil legal aid allow me to access another solicitor even though I had one on this case already?
Do solicitors ever change their mind once they’ve conducted their merits assessment even if you have valid points to raise?
I also have a limitation date coming up which is just 4 weeks away.
Feeling depressed
Scroll to see replies
Reply 1
I can only assume that you’re expecting me to reply to this thread, because you know that this forum is populated mostly by students who cannot advise you, and the few practising lawyers on here don’t practise in this area.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
Reply 2
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieI can only assume that you’re expecting me to reply to this thread, because you know that this forum is populated mostly by students who cannot advise you, and the few practising lawyers on here don’t practise in this area.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
I feel she may not change her mind because she has already formed a strong opinion given that her merits assessment of my claim was quite long. The issue though is that we were in the process of drafting a statement of claim with another member of her team. The finalised version was meant to be sent to me, but she didn’t give me a chance to provide further comments because she said that she had to speed things up due to the timescales. As she has gone to great lengths writing her opinion, I feel like she has her mind made up even if I say something else. It’s not that I think I’m better qualified than she is but that she has misattribtued my requests for reasonable adjustments with respect to the defendant due to study commitments as opposed to my disabilities. Apart from that I agree with everything else. But the disabilities points make up quite a lot of the portion of her assessment which I disagree with why she thinks I asks for the reasonable adjustments .
She hasn’t responded yet but I am wondering whether to just allow her to close my case then maybe I can get another solicitor under legal aid. Or even just drop it altogether and focus on my exams in December . I have just two left before o get called to the bar March/July next year. But I just feel like I’ve not had any closure with my disability discrimination claim and that there’s not been any justice with how the defendants acted
Reply 3
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieI can only assume that you’re expecting me to reply to this thread, because you know that this forum is populated mostly by students who cannot advise you, and the few practising lawyers on here don’t practise in this area.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
In practical terms, your solicitor is very unlikely to change her mind unless she is presented with new evidence or has fundamentally misunderstood something. You insisting she is wrong isn’t going to do anything. You should appreciate, though, that she is better placed than you to form an objective view of your prospects of success. She is more likely to be right on these issues, and in particular how likely it is that the court will see it your way, than you are.
I don’t know whether or not civil legal aid will cover a second opinion. I doubt it, but you’ll have to ask your solicitor. In practical terms, if it doesn’t you will either have to pay for a second opinion yourself (which I appreciate you likely don’t have the money to do) or proceed with the case as a litigant in person. Not the best options, I appreciate, but the only ones you really have if you can’t secure a favourable enough opinion from a solicitor to be granted civil legal aid.
Do you deal with just discrimination in an employment setting as mine relates to while accessing a public service.
In addition,do you know what area of law would this come under as the employment solicitors I contacted don’t cover this as it’s not discrimination at work.
Reply 4
Original post
by Butterflywings24Do you deal with just discrimination in an employment setting as mine relates to while accessing a public service.
In addition,do you know what area of law would this come under as the employment solicitors I contacted don’t cover this as it’s not discrimination at work.
In addition,do you know what area of law would this come under as the employment solicitors I contacted don’t cover this as it’s not discrimination at work.
I deal with discrimination in all jurisdictions. Employment solicitors won't cover it because they don't have experience of running litigation in the County Court (which is very different to litigation in the Employment Tribunal), but the actual law is fundamentally the same. You need to find a firm that deals with civil discrimination claims. Stephensons is one well known national firm that does civil discrimination claims and represents clients under civil legal aid in those claims, but there are plenty of others.
On the assessment made by your current solicitor, you have to appreciate that she will reach conclusions based on what the evidence shows, which may be different to what you think happened, and indeed sometimes may be different to what actually happened. But in reality, as much as I appreciate your desire to see justice, litigation is about what the evidence shows. The desire for justice is all well and good, but if you're contemplating litigation you need to make well informed, sensible decisions. Sometimes that means not pursuing a claim at all.
Reply 5
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieI deal with discrimination in all jurisdictions. Employment solicitors won't cover it because they don't have experience of running litigation in the County Court (which is very different to litigation in the Employment Tribunal), but the actual law is fundamentally the same. You need to find a firm that deals with civil discrimination claims. Stephensons is one well known national firm that does civil discrimination claims and represents clients under civil legal aid in those claims, but there are plenty of others.
On the assessment made by your current solicitor, you have to appreciate that she will reach conclusions based on what the evidence shows, which may be different to what you think happened, and indeed sometimes may be different to what actually happened. But in reality, as much as I appreciate your desire to see justice, litigation is about what the evidence shows. The desire for justice is all well and good, but if you're contemplating litigation you need to make well informed, sensible decisions. Sometimes that means not pursuing a claim at all.
On the assessment made by your current solicitor, you have to appreciate that she will reach conclusions based on what the evidence shows, which may be different to what you think happened, and indeed sometimes may be different to what actually happened. But in reality, as much as I appreciate your desire to see justice, litigation is about what the evidence shows. The desire for justice is all well and good, but if you're contemplating litigation you need to make well informed, sensible decisions. Sometimes that means not pursuing a claim at all.
Do you know of any other firm that deals with civil discrimination claims on a legal aid basis.
I understand but I think that what those on the advising side don’t always understand is the emotional toll that something like this can have on you. It’s not really something that you can snap your fingers and move on from. I really hope that when I become a barrister that I am empathetic to my clients because the way you just feel hung out to dry once things are decided is really painful. I know that for some I think my case is just an academic exercise.
This case really affected me a lot and even though things happened that shouldn’t have which in my opinion were discriminatory I don’t have any form of redress and the defendants who did those things to me can just continue with their jobs.
So I am grieving also…
If you were in my position, would you get a second opinion? Or leave it and focus on upcoming exams
Reply 6
14
I'm not going to comment on the substantive merits of your case, nor whether you should instruct an alternative solicitor: I don't know anything about the circumstances to do so.
However, I would note that the role of your legal advisor is to provide objective legal counsel and then to advocate strongly on your behalf. Yes, a degree of empathy is important but you cannot (and should not) expect them to "buy-in" to your case emotionally. Once they do that, there is a risk that they lose objectivity.
If you can clearly establish where you think that your solicitor has missed a substantive legal or factual point then you should either highlight that to them, or instruct someone else who can properly make your case. But at the moment I'm getting a strong sense of "this isn't fair, and they don't understand".
Try and step back and look at this rationally. What benefit is there in bringing proceedings? Will it substantively improve your situation if you were to win? Or will it cause more stress? What does "closure" and "justice" mean in practical terms?
Bear in mind that, if you are going into the legal profession, then these are the sorts of questions you will be putting to your own clients in due course.
However, I would note that the role of your legal advisor is to provide objective legal counsel and then to advocate strongly on your behalf. Yes, a degree of empathy is important but you cannot (and should not) expect them to "buy-in" to your case emotionally. Once they do that, there is a risk that they lose objectivity.
If you can clearly establish where you think that your solicitor has missed a substantive legal or factual point then you should either highlight that to them, or instruct someone else who can properly make your case. But at the moment I'm getting a strong sense of "this isn't fair, and they don't understand".
Try and step back and look at this rationally. What benefit is there in bringing proceedings? Will it substantively improve your situation if you were to win? Or will it cause more stress? What does "closure" and "justice" mean in practical terms?
Bear in mind that, if you are going into the legal profession, then these are the sorts of questions you will be putting to your own clients in due course.
Reply 7
11
Original post
by chalksI'm not going to comment on the substantive merits of your case, nor whether you should instruct an alternative solicitor: I don't know anything about the circumstances to do so.
However, I would note that the role of your legal advisor is to provide objective legal counsel and then to advocate strongly on your behalf. Yes, a degree of empathy is important but you cannot (and should not) expect them to "buy-in" to your case emotionally. Once they do that, there is a risk that they lose objectivity.
If you can clearly establish where you think that your solicitor has missed a substantive legal or factual point then you should either highlight that to them, or instruct someone else who can properly make your case. But at the moment I'm getting a strong sense of "this isn't fair, and they don't understand".
Try and step back and look at this rationally. What benefit is there in bringing proceedings? Will it substantively improve your situation if you were to win? Or will it cause more stress? What does "closure" and "justice" mean in practical terms?
Bear in mind that, if you are going into the legal profession, then these are the sorts of questions you will be putting to your own clients in due course.
However, I would note that the role of your legal advisor is to provide objective legal counsel and then to advocate strongly on your behalf. Yes, a degree of empathy is important but you cannot (and should not) expect them to "buy-in" to your case emotionally. Once they do that, there is a risk that they lose objectivity.
If you can clearly establish where you think that your solicitor has missed a substantive legal or factual point then you should either highlight that to them, or instruct someone else who can properly make your case. But at the moment I'm getting a strong sense of "this isn't fair, and they don't understand".
Try and step back and look at this rationally. What benefit is there in bringing proceedings? Will it substantively improve your situation if you were to win? Or will it cause more stress? What does "closure" and "justice" mean in practical terms?
Bear in mind that, if you are going into the legal profession, then these are the sorts of questions you will be putting to your own clients in due course.
I have highlighted it to her, she just hasn’t responded yet.
But I just feel like she may not change her mind as she has already stepped over the line in terms of whether or not she think she can help me. She may not be the sort of person who can then change her mind once she has formed a strong view. Some people are like that. Plus just because she is a solicitor doesn’t mean she will just always be exactly as what’s expected of her morally. Her personality can also get in the way or office politics.
I would say it would substantively improve my situation if I was to win by way of achieving a settlement plus acknowledgment of the discrimination.
I do understand that but I don’t think I could be as cold towards my clients as if they are just a number
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 8
Original post
by Butterflywings24Do you know of any other firm that deals with civil discrimination claims on a legal aid basis.
I'm I will have, but I'm usually on the Defendant/Respondent side and it's not always apparent to me that a claimant is funded by way of legal aid, so names are escaping me as I'm typing this.
I understand but I think that what those on the advising side don’t always understand is the emotional toll that something like this can have on you. It’s not really something that you can snap your fingers and move on from. I really hope that when I become a barrister that I am empathetic to my clients because the way you just feel hung out to dry once things are decided is really painful. I know that for some I think my case is just an academic exercise.
This case really affected me a lot and even though things happened that shouldn’t have which in my opinion were discriminatory I don’t have any form of redress and the defendants who did those things to me can just continue with their jobs.
So I am grieving also…
I'm sure the vast majority of legal advisers, particular those who advise more vulnerable clients, are well aware of the emotional toll. I certainly am when I advise my clients, and I represent clients who are not normally thought of as being emotionally invested in cases because they tend to be defending them. But chalks is absolutely spot on. Legal advisers can and should empathise, but their role is to provide objective advice, and as soon as you allow that empathy to change your advice you are no longer doing your job. And as difficult as it is for you as a prospective claimant to come to terms with advice to the effect that you don't have a strong case, you have engaged a lawyer to assess your case and provide objective advice, not to rubber stamp your own thoughts on your case.
If you were in my position, would you get a second opinion? Or leave it and focus on upcoming exams
It depends on the specifics of the advice, but generally speaking no, I would accept the advice I've received and move on.
Reply 9
14
Original post
by Butterflywings24I have highlighted it to her, she just hasn’t responded yet.
But I just feel like she may not change her mind as she has already stepped over the line in terms of whether or not she think she can help me. She may not be the sort of person who can then change her mind once she has formed a strong view. Some people are like that. Plus just because she is a solicitor doesn’t mean she will just always be exactly as what’s expected of her morally. Her personality can also get in the way or office politics.
I would say it would substantively improve my situation if I was to win by way of achieving a settlement plus acknowledgment of the discrimination.
I do understand that but I don’t think I could be as cold towards my clients as if they are just a number
But I just feel like she may not change her mind as she has already stepped over the line in terms of whether or not she think she can help me. She may not be the sort of person who can then change her mind once she has formed a strong view. Some people are like that. Plus just because she is a solicitor doesn’t mean she will just always be exactly as what’s expected of her morally. Her personality can also get in the way or office politics.
I would say it would substantively improve my situation if I was to win by way of achieving a settlement plus acknowledgment of the discrimination.
I do understand that but I don’t think I could be as cold towards my clients as if they are just a number
You seem to be assuming that, because she hasn't amended her advice, she might be (i) the sort of person who just doesn't like to change their mind, (ii) acting immorally and/or (iii) the sort of solicitor who might allow their personality or office politics to override their duty to their client.
The other possibility is, of course, that they stand by their original advice.
If your solicitor has been presented with additional information which should substantively change their advice, but she has deliberately chosen not to do so (for whatever reason), then she may be professionally negligent. That's a pretty fundamental failing for a solicitor and one which we generally try to avoid (it does tend to impact on our insurance premiums). With that in mind, you might want to apply Occam's Razor and objectively consider what is the most likely explanation.
We, as legal counsel, are not expected to be "cold" towards our clients nor treat them "as a number": if nothing else, that sort of bedside manner tends to be pretty limiting on the business development front. But those clients don't pay us to be their best friend, a shoulder to cry on or their cheerleader. They pay us to provide the best legal advice possible and then to represent their interests to the very best of our abilities. It can be easy for lawyers to "go native" and become completely swallowed-up by a client's case to such an extent that they become a crusader for their client's cause. But that's not our role.
Reply 10
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieI'm I will have, but I'm usually on the Defendant/Respondent side and it's not always apparent to me that a claimant is funded by way of legal aid, so names are escaping me as I'm typing this.
I'm sure the vast majority of legal advisers, particular those who advise more vulnerable clients, are well aware of the emotional toll. I certainly am when I advise my clients, and I represent clients who are not normally thought of as being emotionally invested in cases because they tend to be defending them. But chalks is absolutely spot on. Legal advisers can and should empathise, but their role is to provide objective advice, and as soon as you allow that empathy to change your advice you are no longer doing your job. And as difficult as it is for you as a prospective claimant to come to terms with advice to the effect that you don't have a strong case, you have engaged a lawyer to assess your case and provide objective advice, not to rubber stamp your own thoughts on your case.
It depends on the specifics of the advice, but generally speaking no, I would accept the advice I've received and move on.
I'm sure the vast majority of legal advisers, particular those who advise more vulnerable clients, are well aware of the emotional toll. I certainly am when I advise my clients, and I represent clients who are not normally thought of as being emotionally invested in cases because they tend to be defending them. But chalks is absolutely spot on. Legal advisers can and should empathise, but their role is to provide objective advice, and as soon as you allow that empathy to change your advice you are no longer doing your job. And as difficult as it is for you as a prospective claimant to come to terms with advice to the effect that you don't have a strong case, you have engaged a lawyer to assess your case and provide objective advice, not to rubber stamp your own thoughts on your case.
It depends on the specifics of the advice, but generally speaking no, I would accept the advice I've received and move on.
•
now that I know I should not pursue my claim in court, can I still say I was discriminated against in my grievance or use words to this affect?
•
While there were continuing acts of “discrimination” the main event that triggered me to take legal action was now 8 months ago. would this weaken my complaint? Could they use this as a tactical advantage by way of thinking that if will not even be able to doing anything legally as they could just use limitation as a defence (they are obviously not aware that because I issued my claim in court, this extended the time limit by 4 months, thus resulting in my limitation date now being in November. So from their side, they may just think I’m passed the 6 month time frame).
•
how I should decide how much compensation I should get. This is one of the remedies btw.
Reply 11
11
Original post
by chalksYou seem to be assuming that, because she hasn't amended her advice, she might be (i) the sort of person who just doesn't like to change their mind, (ii) acting immorally and/or (iii) the sort of solicitor who might allow their personality or office politics to override their duty to their client.
The other possibility is, of course, that they stand by their original advice.
If your solicitor has been presented with additional information which should substantively change their advice, but she has deliberately chosen not to do so (for whatever reason), then she may be professionally negligent. That's a pretty fundamental failing for a solicitor and one which we generally try to avoid (it does tend to impact on our insurance premiums). With that in mind, you might want to apply Occam's Razor and objectively consider what is the most likely explanation.
We, as legal counsel, are not expected to be "cold" towards our clients nor treat them "as a number": if nothing else, that sort of bedside manner tends to be pretty limiting on the business development front. But those clients don't pay us to be their best friend, a shoulder to cry on or their cheerleader. They pay us to provide the best legal advice possible and then to represent their interests to the very best of our abilities. It can be easy for lawyers to "go native" and become completely swallowed-up by a client's case to such an extent that they become a crusader for their client's cause. But that's not our role.
The other possibility is, of course, that they stand by their original advice.
If your solicitor has been presented with additional information which should substantively change their advice, but she has deliberately chosen not to do so (for whatever reason), then she may be professionally negligent. That's a pretty fundamental failing for a solicitor and one which we generally try to avoid (it does tend to impact on our insurance premiums). With that in mind, you might want to apply Occam's Razor and objectively consider what is the most likely explanation.
We, as legal counsel, are not expected to be "cold" towards our clients nor treat them "as a number": if nothing else, that sort of bedside manner tends to be pretty limiting on the business development front. But those clients don't pay us to be their best friend, a shoulder to cry on or their cheerleader. They pay us to provide the best legal advice possible and then to represent their interests to the very best of our abilities. It can be easy for lawyers to "go native" and become completely swallowed-up by a client's case to such an extent that they become a crusader for their client's cause. But that's not our role.
I’m going to use the defendants internal complaints procedure as I can more or less achieve the same remedies that way. The solicitor also said in their merits assessment I need another solicitor who specialises in the other areas of law my claim pertains to.
But still currently awaiting a response since I sent the disagreements I have to her on Friday. Hopefully I’ll hear back this coming week
Reply 12
Original post
by Butterflywings24•
now that I know I should not pursue my claim in court, can I still say I was discriminated against in my grievance or use words to this affect?
•
Yes, you can.
•
While there were continuing acts of “discrimination” the main event that triggered me to take legal action was now 8 months ago. would this weaken my complaint? Could they use this as a tactical advantage by way of thinking that if will not even be able to doing anything legally as they could just use limitation as a defence (they are obviously not aware that because I issued my claim in court, this extended the time limit by 4 months, thus resulting in my limitation date now being in November. So from their side, they may just think I’m passed the 6 month time frame).
•
On a strict merits basis, no, it doesn't. Though at the same time, most companies will be aware of the possibility of legal proceedings and will be aware that the time limit on discrimination claims in six months, or they will if they take legal advice. But it isn't something that should affect the outcome of the grievance. At the same time, even if the grievance is well founded it wouldn't surprise me if the outcome specified some sort of failing but didn't find that to be discriminatory.
•
how I should decide how much compensation I should get. This is one of the remedies btw.
Compensation for discrimination is injury to feelings (based on the Vento guidelines: you can Google those if you haven't already) plus special damages, which as I'm sure you're aware are essentially tangible out of pocket expenses and losses. As a general rule, most people do over estimate their damages under the Vento guidelines. The vast majority of discriminatory acts fall in the lower band.
Reply 13
Well, that table code completely messed up by ability to multi quote in that last post. Hopefully you can still figure it out though, because it also won't let me edit it.
Reply 14
11
Original post
by Crazy Jamie•
Yes, you can.
•
On a strict merits basis, no, it doesn't. Though at the same time, most companies will be aware of the possibility of legal proceedings and will be aware that the time limit on discrimination claims in six months, or they will if they take legal advice. But it isn't something that should affect the outcome of the grievance. At the same time, even if the grievance is well founded it wouldn't surprise me if the outcome specified some sort of failing but didn't find that to be discriminatory.
Compensation for discrimination is injury to feelings (based on the Vento guidelines: you can Google those if you haven't already) plus special damages, which as I'm sure you're aware are essentially tangible out of pocket expenses and losses. As a general rule, most people do over estimate their damages under the Vento guidelines. The vast majority of discriminatory acts fall in the lower band.
Thanks so much! This is super helpful!
I’m aware of the vento guidelines but given the advice I got from my solicitor, I’m hesistant now about the actual value of my case. As such, should I mention what band I feel my case should be in anyway and then allow them to make a decision
and is it possible to achieve financial compensation close to what could be achieved in an actual legal case in generally speaking?
Reply 15
Original post
by Butterflywings24Thanks so much! This is super helpful!
I’m aware of the vento guidelines but given the advice I got from my solicitor, I’m hesistant now about the actual value of my case. As such, should I mention what band I feel my case should be in anyway and then allow them to make a decision
and is it possible to achieve financial compensation close to what could be achieved in an actual legal case in generally speaking?
I’m aware of the vento guidelines but given the advice I got from my solicitor, I’m hesistant now about the actual value of my case. As such, should I mention what band I feel my case should be in anyway and then allow them to make a decision
and is it possible to achieve financial compensation close to what could be achieved in an actual legal case in generally speaking?
Yes, you can ask for whatever you want in a grievance, including compensation in a particular Vento band. As for whether you can achieve financial compensation close to what would be achieved in an actual legal case, generally speaking that's pretty unlikely unless your case is absolutely watertight and they want to pay you off to avoid the inevitable proceedings, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know the context of this situation or the grievance process, and those things are relevant, but if it's a process run internally and not by an independent third party, you usually have to be in a particular strong position to get anything substantive from it. If there is a relevant Ombudsman that would be the natural next step because the Ombudsman is impartial, free and can award pretty substantial compensation.
Reply 16
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieYes, you can ask for whatever you want in a grievance, including compensation in a particular Vento band. As for whether you can achieve financial compensation close to what would be achieved in an actual legal case, generally speaking that's pretty unlikely unless your case is absolutely watertight and they want to pay you off to avoid the inevitable proceedings, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know the context of this situation or the grievance process, and those things are relevant, but if it's a process run internally and not by an independent third party, you usually have to be in a particular strong position to get anything substantive from it. If there is a relevant Ombudsman that would be the natural next step because the Ombudsman is impartial, free and can award pretty substantial compensation.
But ombudsmen services usually have the worst reviews. I literally have no faith, plus they normally - as you probably know already, expect you to exhaust internal procedures too.
Do you think company’s ever just basically pay you off to avoid having to run internal investigations or go through the whole procedure. My grievance is 20 pages, I have lots of evidence in terms of screenshots, direct messages, audio recordings, GP letters, everything you can imagine I have. Plus even subject access request
Reply 17
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieYes, you can ask for whatever you want in a grievance, including compensation in a particular Vento band. As for whether you can achieve financial compensation close to what would be achieved in an actual legal case, generally speaking that's pretty unlikely unless your case is absolutely watertight and they want to pay you off to avoid the inevitable proceedings, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know the context of this situation or the grievance process, and those things are relevant, but if it's a process run internally and not by an independent third party, you usually have to be in a particular strong position to get anything substantive from it. If there is a relevant Ombudsman that would be the natural next step because the Ombudsman is impartial, free and can award pretty substantial compensation.
I also wanted to ask, what made you interested in going into employment law? Have you experienced discrimination yourself before due to a protected characteristic?
Reply 18
Original post
by Butterflywings24But ombudsmen services usually have the worst reviews. I literally have no faith, plus they normally - as you probably know already, expect you to exhaust internal procedures too.
Do you think company’s ever just basically pay you off to avoid having to run internal investigations or go through the whole procedure. My grievance is 20 pages, I have lots of evidence in terms of screenshots, direct messages, audio recordings, GP letters, everything you can imagine I have. Plus even subject access request
Do you think company’s ever just basically pay you off to avoid having to run internal investigations or go through the whole procedure. My grievance is 20 pages, I have lots of evidence in terms of screenshots, direct messages, audio recordings, GP letters, everything you can imagine I have. Plus even subject access request
I do know that they expect you to exhaust internal procedures, which is why I said it's your best next step. And whether you have faith in them or not is irrelevant really. If you don't receive an adequate offer following your grievance, it's your only option aside from litigation, which always comes with some sort of costs risk, and a quite overt costs risk if the value is over £10,000.
Original post
by Butterflywings24I also wanted to ask, what made you interested in going into employment law? Have you experienced discrimination yourself before due to a protected characteristic?
Nothing so personal. I was always drawn to a civil practice because neither crime nor family appealed to me, and added employment to an already general civil practice as more of a business move for variety. When I moved chambers I was doing a mix of personal injury and employment, and chose employment pretty quickly simply because I found it to be much more satisfying an area of practice than personal injury. It then just so happened that I built up experience doing discrimination work, and once you have a reputation for having a specialism that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and you will get more work in that area. I had enough personal injury experience to know the CPR well, so I've ended up doing discrimination work in all jurisdictions including the Employment Tribunal. As I say, no personal story to tell. It's just where my practice has taken me, pretty much for business reasons.
Reply 19
11
Original post
by Crazy JamieI do know that they expect you to exhaust internal procedures, which is why I said it's your best next step. And whether you have faith in them or not is irrelevant really. If you don't receive an adequate offer following your grievance, it's your only option aside from litigation, which always comes with some sort of costs risk, and a quite overt costs risk if the value is over £10,000.
Nothing so personal. I was always drawn to a civil practice because neither crime nor family appealed to me, and added employment to an already general civil practice as more of a business move for variety. When I moved chambers I was doing a mix of personal injury and employment, and chose employment pretty quickly simply because I found it to be much more satisfying an area of practice than personal injury. It then just so happened that I built up experience doing discrimination work, and once you have a reputation for having a specialism that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and you will get more work in that area. I had enough personal injury experience to know the CPR well, so I've ended up doing discrimination work in all jurisdictions including the Employment Tribunal. As I say, no personal story to tell. It's just where my practice has taken me, pretty much for business reasons.
Nothing so personal. I was always drawn to a civil practice because neither crime nor family appealed to me, and added employment to an already general civil practice as more of a business move for variety. When I moved chambers I was doing a mix of personal injury and employment, and chose employment pretty quickly simply because I found it to be much more satisfying an area of practice than personal injury. It then just so happened that I built up experience doing discrimination work, and once you have a reputation for having a specialism that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and you will get more work in that area. I had enough personal injury experience to know the CPR well, so I've ended up doing discrimination work in all jurisdictions including the Employment Tribunal. As I say, no personal story to tell. It's just where my practice has taken me, pretty much for business reasons.
Why do the ombudsman schemes have such a bad rap , at least so far as the public negative reviews are concerned. Are they really that bad and is there any point besides just exhausting options.
How do you deal with just hearing about people injuring themselves or being discriminated against. At least on the BPC, the injuries in the cases would be quite horrific but there is some comfort knowing that it is fictitious. Whereas real life must be gruesome. On the other hand with discrimination, I would probably just lose faith in humanity
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it hard to get a job with a law degree?
- Which uni for law?
- Barrister Shadowing
- Law Course Help
- considering a career in international law over commercial law, any tips?
- ULaw or BPP
- Conversion from History to Law- Top law firms??
- MA LAW (conversion) online/ part time advice please !! e
- Looking for some Advice- Chances of getting a vacation scheme with low a level grades
- Is accounting A Level worth it?
- What is better? Law or law with criminology
- Seeking Advice!
- Should I apply?
- training contract advantage?
- Barrister apprenticeships
- University considerations
- im so stuck
- I’m not sure whether to do psychology or law as a degree!
- has anyone done/is doing a solicitor degree apprenticeship?
- Help Law uni choices 2025!!!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme (Oct 2026 Start!)Last reply 2 months ago
Help needed with best options for postgraduate law courses/Master'sLast reply 3 months ago
Advice on realistic chambers to target for pupillageLast reply 4 months ago
Weighting of interview vs form in Inns of Court GDL Scholarship programmes
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
