Do lawyers send demand letters to a client who owes them money or do they just sue? If a lawyer has a deadbeat client, do they just immediately file a complaint against them and seek judgement, or do they send a demand letter first threatening to sue them? I am not asking about when they are do debt recovery for someone else professionally. I am asking what lawyers do when one of their own clients owes them money and shows no signs of paying voluntarily. The reason why I ask is that I trying to determine to what extent demand letters are just efforts to generate billable hours, or whether they have a legitimate purpose. If lawyers never bother to send demand letters when they collect their own debts, then obviously the letters are just a revenue-generation method.
Demand letters are often used to collect debts from one's own clients, most prominently, because filing a lawsuit against a client often triggers a counterclaim for malpractice or an ethical grievance, even if it is not justified on the merits. Demanding payment without suing rarely has these consequences and often isn't even enough to trigger an urge to post an unjustified (or justified) bad review of the lawyer online. Demand letters are not just efforts to generate billable hours. Lawyers want to generate billable hours for clients who pay them reliably, rather than devoting time to work collecting from a client who has a significant likelihood of not paying. One reason to send demand letters is that sometimes, the reason that clients don't pay is not that they are unwilling to pay, or dispute the bill, but that they are currently unable to pay. A demand letter keeps the debt fresh in the client's mind when an ability to pay is restored. Quite a bit of hourly charge legal work is de facto contingent fee work because the client almost by definition won't have the ability to pay for it promptly if the outcome is a bad one (often for reasons beyond the lawyer's control). Demand letters are cheap, can often be drafted by administrative staff for attorney review, and because they are cheap, don't have to have a high success rate to be worth the effort. Even a 5%-10% payment rate for unpaid fees that are sought in demand letters makes them worth it. A second reason to send a demand letter can also trigger a written response acknowledging that the debt is owed and apologizing for not paying, and/or paying a token amount like $25, each of which extends the statute of limitations to collect the entire amount of the debt for unpaid fees. A third reason to send a demand letter is that it helps the lawyer to keep current on the client's address, if the client moves, while a mail forwarding order is still in place. A fourth reason to send a demand letter is that it discourages the client from trying to get the lawyer to do additional work on existing or new matters that the client can't afford to pay for (especially in non-litigation representations) because it reminds them that they already owe money to the firm. Typically, a lawyer sues when (1) the client is known to be collectible now, (2) there is not credible basis for a malpractice lawsuit and there was not a bad outcome, and (3) the statute of limitations is approaching or the client has a serious chance of not being collectible later. The Business Model Context In a typical small and medium sized practice with a mix of litigation work done on an hourly basis and transactional work involving negotiations that are not flat fee, maybe 10% of unpaid bills are ever the subject of a collection lawsuit brought by the law firm that wasn't paid. A firm like that often ultimately writes off as much as 20%-30% or more of all the fees it bills to its clients on an hourly basis (with substantial variation from year to year), and typically receives maybe a third of all the fees that it is ultimately paid more than 90 days after the due date for the invoiced fees. A pattern of a client not paying for several months and then making a big lump sum payment for reasons that may or may not be related to the representation is fairly common. For reasons like this (and the timing of contingency fee payouts) solo practice and small firm lawyers with non-criminal practices typically have incomes that vary wildly from year to year, even though the amount of work actually done each year as measured by billable hours is quite consistent. Large law firms are actually quite similar to this business model as well, although they charge higher rates and bill more hours on cases, and the law of averages keeps their monthly fee collections a little more consistent. Many large firms pay all of their expenses from a line of credit so that they don't have to worry about the timing of their collections to pay their monthly expenses, and then settle up with their bank at the end of the year. Certain kinds of firms (e.g. criminal defense) require all anticipated fees to be in a retainer before work is started. Other kinds of work (e.g. probate administration and flat fee transactional work and contingent fee work) usually is paid promptly and reliably when due. In the insurance defense counsel business model, invoices are almost always paid so demand letters aren't needed, but are usually paid very slowly (90-180 days from invoice), the hourly rates are below average, and the insurance company routinely nitpicks bills to reduce hourly charges in any given month by 5%-10% or so.
The solicitor is allowed not to accept a case. If your ex-wife asked him to prepare papers, and he feels that she is getting ripped off, it is absolutely understandable that he won't prepare these papers for her, because he doesn't want to be sued or badmouthed when the deal goes wrong. "We would also reserve the right to take our own professional advice as to our efforts on your behalf." means simply he is not specialised in some subject, and will prefer to ask someone who is. Like a medical doctor asking for a second opinion before going ahead and cutting your leg off. Now I would have preferred if the solicitor had said concretely what exactly is wrong with the contract. Also, it would be obvious that you would be very comfortable with anything that he would advice her against. If he thinks that it is a good deal for you but not for her, he should advice against it. (Your comment to another question seems to indicate that she should be paid a lot more than you offered, so her solicitor seems to have been perfectly right).
From https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/collection_agencies10: If you are not the person the debt collector is looking for – for example, if your name is the same as the person who owes the bill – explain the mistake in writing as soon as possible. You may be asked to provide a drivers’ license or other proof of identification to show that you are wrong person. Perhaps you should send them a copy of your phone bill, showing the number and your name. When you do this, consider asking them to stop calling you, or to stop communicating with you altogether: You may also ask a debt collector to contact you only by mail. Make your request in writing, send it by certified mail, and keep a copy for your records. You also have the right to ask a debt collector to stop contacting you entirely. The request must be in writing, and you should send it by certified mail and keep a copy for your records. If you make this request, the debt collector can only contact you to confirm it will stop contacting you and to notify you that it may take action against you. (15 United States Code section 1692c.) Remember, though, that if you request no contact at all, the debt collector may take you to court and may still report your debt to credit reporting agencies. Then, if they continue to call (the hyperlinks are in the source): If you believe that a debt collector has violated the law, you can file a complaint with the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit. Consumer complaints are valuable to the Attorney General’s Office because they alert us to debt collection issues and other issues that California consumers face. We may forward a copy of your complaint to the debt collector; however, please be aware that the Attorney General’s Office cannot represent individuals or give legal advice. You may also wish to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This agency enforces the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FTC may be contacted by mail at Consumer Response Center, Washington, DC 20580-0001, or by telephone at 1(877)-FTC-HELP, or at FTC Complaint Assistant.
england-and-wales - present day... Would the contents of the envelope be considered privileged? No Although it is possible to argue that the letter is a communication to the lawyer (albeit by mistake) its purpose is not in relation to seeking or receiving legal advice, so it fails to meet the definition of legal privilege: There are two forms of legal professional privilege: Legal advice privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients for the purposes of giving or obtaining legal advice. Litigation privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers, clients and third parties made for the purposes of litigation, either actual or contemplated. Would the lawyer be required to divulge it if asked by the police or in a court? Yes, No, Maybe If the lawyer is a suspect/defendant then there is no requirement to answer any questions whatsoever. Similarly, there is no obligation on a witness to answer questions unless a statutory provision has been triggered, such as the lawyer being given a Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Disclosure Notice. Would he be required to report the matter to the police on his own? Yes Although there is no general requirement to report a crime (of this nature) to the police, the lawyer's profession is in the &quot;regulated sector&quot; which requires Suspicious Activity Reports to be submitted to the authorities: ... in respect of information that comes to them in the course of their business if they know, or suspect or have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that a person is engaged in, or attempting, money laundering... What difference, if any does it make that the client apparently did not intend to send these contents to the lawyer? None that I can see ETA The status of legal privilege in 1925 seems to have been the same as now, and this Wikipedia article, under the heading History offers this in support: The common law principle of legal professional privilege is of extremely long standing. The earliest recorded instance of the principle in English case-law dates from 1577 in the case of Berd v Lovelace ([1576] EngR 10 (&amp; Ors))
There is no significance to using the words &quot;I&quot; or &quot;we&quot;, nor does it matter that you didn't sign the surrender paper (after al, you did not have possession of the vehicle and it is not yours to surrender). You will have gotten a notice, at the beginning of this process (when the loan was taken out) that provides information like this, in particular The creditor can collect this debt from you without first trying to collect from the borrower. The creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower, including suing you or garnishing your wages. If this debt is ever in default, that fact may become a part of your credit record. When you are a loan co-signer, that means the creditor can go after you and you alone to get the money. Since it seems the creditors are pursuing you both, that beats the alternative that you have to sue her to get anything. Since there is no question that money is owed, the point of the trial is to decide who pays it: it will be one or both of you, and it won't be that the bank has to take a loss. Your attorney's job is to argue that it should not be you (her attorney's job is to argue that it should be you). Your concern should be that it's too difficult to get the money from her, and easy to get the money from you, which is why you need to hire a good attorney.
The creditor must prove the debt with evidence In order to collect a debt, either: the debtor has to agree the debt is owed - straight up or after some sort of non-binding ADR, like mediation. the debtor has to prove the debt in a binding forum - either a court or binding arbitration Details vary by jurisdiction but a court case: starts with a statement of claim where the plaintiff (debtor) sets out their case against the defendant (creditor) the defendant can: ignore the claim - in which case the plaintiff seeks a default judgement and, providing they have a prima facie case, they will get it. They can then recover the debt. admit the claim and pay the debt raise a defence - in which they set out why the don’t owe the money in part or in whole. each side provides evidence to support their position the court considers the evidence and arguments and decides if the plaintiff has proved their case on the balance of probabilities if they have, they receive judgement which the can enforce (subject to appeals) if they haven’t there is no debt (subject to appeals)
This is a rather elaborate version of receiving stolen property. It is a crime because you know that the property is not yours and you know who it belongs to. The fact that funds were returned mitigates the punishment that might be imposed, but disgorgement of profits as well as principal would be a typical criminal restitution in such a case. A prosecutor could decline to press charges (and often would decline to do so), but would have the authority to do so. An analogous case that comes up more frequently is when an attorney takes client funds out of his trust account (either accidentally or intentionally) and then uses the funds in a way that produces a profit or avoids, for example, a late payment penalty, and then returns the funds improperly withdrawn from the trust account. This is still conduct for which attorneys are routinely disbarred and prosecuted criminally. Even if the person didn't know that the money belonged to someone else when it was used, the true owner of the money could sue for unjust enrichment for both the funds and the proceeds from the funds. For example, if funds were accidentally deposited in your bank account rather than the correct one due to a transposition of numbers in the account number, and you didn't notice this error, you would have liability to return not just the accidentally deposited funds, but also the profits from those funds, because both would be unjust enrichment. But, in an accidental case where there was no knowledge that the funds were wrongfully placed in your account, you could deduct from the amount to be returned any banking charges you incurred with respect to the transactions and it would not be a crime.
A warrant is never automatically issued. A warrant (I assume you mean arrest warrant) can be issued under court orders, if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. If a court orders A to pay money to B and A does not, A can be arrested. A court will not sua sponte make such an order without some petition by a harmed party. So B could sue A for the amount owed, and the burden is on B. There are criminal laws that pertain to check bouncing, for example in Washington under RCW 9a.56.060 it is a crime, but not every check-bouncing is a crime. You have to have "intent to defraud", "knowing at the time..that he or she has not sufficient funds". If convicted you will be fined, and may be imprisoned. Even in the case of a fraudulent intent, there is no automatic warrant (the police do not know what has come to pass). B does not "press charges", but they can complain to the police who may investigate and find that there is evidence of fraudulent intent (which can lead to an arrest warrant). They may also conclude that the evidence of fraud is insufficient.