Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.10 23:30

I wonder if Adam Tudor and some of his 'sidekicks' at Carter-Ruck might be overcharging the McCanns?

QUOTE

The Legal Ombudsman can authorise compesnation of up to £30,000

Lawyers who bring the industry into disrepute by charging huge prices for services will no longer get away with it, the new Legal Ombudsman has said.

The independent service for complaints about lawyers in England and Wales starts its work on Tuesday [26 October]. Chief Ombudsman Adam Sampson said he would crack down on those lawyers who choose profit over good service.

But consumer group Which? said the new body's powers, including awarding up to £30,000 compensation, were not enough.

Mr Sampson said: "One of our important jobs is to help protect the vast majority of lawyers who really want to do a good job from the small number of lawyers who are in it from bad motives and who can bring down the reputation of the profession as a whole."

[PICTURE: 'Name and shame']

Mr Sampson called the previous system of complaints "bewildering and very inefficient".

He said the industry's Legal Complaints Service and previous bodies had had a "woeful record" on the handling of complaints.

However, Martyn Hocking, editor of Which?, said: "The Legal Ombudsman has a cap on the amount of compensation it can force solicitors to pay back of £30,000. It's questionable whether that is high enough."

He also called on the Ombudsman to "name and shame" by publishing complaints data, as the Financial Ombudsman has recently started doing after years of lobbying.

Mr Hocking said: "The Legal Ombudsman needs to be able to collate that data and definitely needs to be able to name and shame." The Legal Ombudsman predicts it will deal with more than 100,000 cases a year.

The body was set up under the Legal Services Act 2007 to simplify the system and make sure consumers had access to an independent expert to resolve complaints.

UNQUOTE

by aiyoyo 25.10.10 5:56

I doubt any complaint from them will be upheld because choices of law firm are down to them.
More importantly the mccanns would be suicidal to bring attention to themselves in that manner.

They shouldnt hire one they couldnt afford, since they would have been informed of charges beforehand.

It would be safe to assume their choice of lawyer has got to do with 'reputation' of the law firm.
They wanted the most ruthless in handling libel cases; they got it, so they must be willing to pay through their nose - not their money anyway so probably they didnt give two monkeys so long as they achieved their objective; else they would have hired differently.

Do people seriously think they've CR at the ready, raring to go, now that their fund is running dangerously low bearing in mind legal expenses incurred in Portugal as well?

Of course CR could always offer their service pro bono. That kind of offer is usually either offered to well known public individuals or companies for image building purposes for law firm or they're pretty much certain they're backing a winning horse thereby also developing their formidable reputation

Are the mccanns in any of the two categories? Does CR want that sort of infamous client to enhance their image?

All depends on CR's corporate objectives; they could probably also be picky about their clients.
So, the mccanns are on their books ...what would be interesting to know is: was the hire of CR done directly by mccanns or via a third party (a party CR would accept) say for example BK or through recommendation of BK's lawyer or maybe a quick word from CM that made the difference.

Are there basis to discontinue service to already existing client if the law firm so wished (just thinking aloud)?

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.10 8:59

aiyoyo wrote:Does CR want that sort of infamous client to enhance their image?

According to Adam Tudor at Carter Ruck - whose speciality is media litigation and reputation management - when he was interviewed for 'Lawyer of the Week' he was asked what was his most memorable experience as a lawyer... he answered:

"Naturally it would be pretty hard to top Mr and Mrs McCann’s victory against Express Group."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3702979.ece

Adam Tudor joined Carter Ruck in 2001 but only had to wait seven years when, in 2008, he had his "most memorable experience" when he secured £550k for the child neglecting NHS doctors and a further £375k for the Tapas mates, which also consisted of more child neglecting NHS doctors....so I don't think Carter Ruck are too bothered about the image their infamous clients gives their Firm because, for Adam, it was his most "memorable experience". Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 93316

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 93316

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? Tapas410

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? Tireso10

by aiyoyo 25.10.10 12:03

jkh wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Does CR want that sort of infamous client to enhance their image?

According to Adam Tudor at Carter Ruck - whose speciality is media litigation and reputation management - when he was interviewed for 'Lawyer of the Week' he was asked what was his most memorable experience as a lawyer... he answered:

"Naturally it would be pretty hard to top Mr and Mrs McCann’s victory against Express Group."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3702979.ece

Adam Tudor joined Carter Ruck in 2001 but only had to wait seven years when, in 2008, he had his "most memorable experience" when he secured £550k for the child neglecting NHS doctors and a further £375k for the Tapas mates, which also consisted of more child neglecting NHS doctors....so I don't think Carter Ruck are too bothered about the image their infamous clients gives their Firm because, for Adam, it was his most "memorable experience".

HA HA HA

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 213589

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 5251

by theolivebranch 25.10.10 15:13

Good afternoon. With legal costs in mind, I understand that the McCanns have to pay the court costs in Portugal re the book ban being lifted, thankyou God Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 342142

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 342142

.

I wonder how much this is likely to be, and what happens if they cannot raise sufficient cash?

And re CR the McCanns didn't employ the local lawyer, from the high street in Rothley, no it had to be the "best", I wonder why Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 302873

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 302873

by aiyoyo 25.10.10 15:18

The silence from camp Mccanns is deafening!

I suppose they will try and sweep this under the carpet hoping the news will go away.

Best lawyers are usually needed for a complicated and difficult job, meaning to obfuscate matters.

by Guest 25.10.10 15:21

theolivebranch wrote:Good afternoon. With legal costs in mind, I understand that the McCanns have to pay the court costs in Portugal re the book ban being lifted, thankyou God .

I wonder how much this is likely to be, and what happens if they cannot raise sufficient cash?

And re CR the McCanns didn't employ the local lawyer, from the high street in Rothley, no it had to be the "best", I wonder why

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 977352

theolivebranch, Put it this way, you would choose the local lawyer if you were paying, it's like if you and your OH went into a jewellers to buy a ring, and someone rather rich came up and said "choose whichever one you want I'll pay", would you choose the cheapest in the shop. Nah you would plump for the most expensive. Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 847771

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT? 847771

by theolivebranch 25.10.10 15:50

aiyoyo wrote:The silence from camp Mccanns is deafening!

I suppose they will try and sweep this under the carpet hoping the news will go away.

Best lawyers are usually needed for a complicated and difficult job, meaning to obfuscate matters.

Hello Aiyoyo, yes indeed a good lawyer was required, but CR, how would they know so early in the case that they would need them? I ask this with tongue in cheek because I know why and so did they. This was going to be megga.
Now how will it go now I wonder?

by theolivebranch 25.10.10 15:56

candyfloss wrote:
theolivebranch wrote:Good afternoon. With legal costs in mind, I understand that the McCanns have to pay the court costs in Portugal re the book ban being lifted, thankyou God .

I wonder how much this is likely to be, and what happens if they cannot raise sufficient cash?

And re CR the McCanns didn't employ the local lawyer, from the high street in Rothley, no it had to be the "best", I wonder why

theolivebranch, Put it this way, you would choose the local lawyer if you were paying, it's like if you and your OH went into a jewellers to buy a ring, and someone rather rich came up and said "choose whichever one you want I'll pay", would you choose the cheapest in the shop. Nah you would plump for the most expensive.

Hello Candyfloss, they plumped for CR because of their reputation of high profile cases, so from the very start, they knew it was high profile. And not a missing child that needed the best in searches, but lawyers, the best in getting very questionable clients through the courts. All my opinion of course.

by Judge Mental 25.10.10 16:44

Are we taking it for granted that Brian Kennedy will not be picking up the tab for them? Surely, this would be rather churlish of him if he is only paying for his and Patrick's reputations?

thinking

Kennedy has been such a good sport in the past by being so benevolent as to contact witnesses, and sitting down with Murat's lawyer, although he knew that the law would not take kindly to his doing so. One would have thought he was very much one of the family now, and that he would continue to use his wealth in the McCanns best interests.

by mystique 25.10.10 23:24

aiyoyo wrote:The silence from camp Mccanns is deafening!

I suppose they will try and sweep this under the carpet hoping the news will go away.

Best lawyers are usually needed for a complicated and difficult job, meaning to obfuscate matters.

I do not think we have heard the last of this really. Remember that the Portuguese legal system can drag on forever and then there is the long drawn out appeal process where you can appeal an appeal. Do i understand it as well that it is only the ban on the book and video that has been lifted due to the human rights or something and not anything to say that Snr Amaral did not libel the McCanns. I am confused by it all.

by Guest 25.10.10 23:36

mystique wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:The silence from camp Mccanns is deafening!

I suppose they will try and sweep this under the carpet hoping the news will go away.

Best lawyers are usually needed for a complicated and difficult job, meaning to obfuscate matters.

I do not think we have heard the last of this really. Remember that the Portuguese legal system can drag on forever and then there is the long drawn out appeal process where you can appeal an appeal. Do i understand it as well that it is only the ban on the book and video that has been lifted due to the human rights or something and not anything to say that Snr Amaral did not libel the McCanns. I am confused by it all.

This is the ruling on Joana's blog, not confusing at all, if you read it carefully, it is about more than the human rights issue. Being discussed on the Book Ban overturned thread. Perhaps you would like to look at that.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Re: Will the McCanns complain to the new Legal Ombudsman about Adam Tudor charging them £500 per hour plus VAT?

Latest topics