AGGRESSIVE INTER-SOLICITOR CORRESPONDENCE: PISTOLS AT DAWN & THE DANGERS OF TALKING ON TRAINS: LESSONS FROM TWITTER
Earlier this week I tweeted a link to earlier posts on this blog “aggressive correspondence”. The responses on Twitter make for interesting (and entertaining) reading. The legal Twitterati provide quite a few lessons here – from the art of brevity to the dangers of talking on trains.
99% of all correspondence should be met with nothing more than “thank you for your letter, the contents of which are noted”. Anything else is superfluous and pointless out-of-court moaning
“I have your letter dated x” is quite sufficient. And aggression etc never has to be met with a ‘thank you’.
My colleagues know that things are bad if I am surprised. If I am disappointed that is really seriously bad.
“ Dear Sirs, we are surprised to note that you….” “Dear Sirs, we are surprised by your surprise….”
Am I allowed to keep *your client’s defence is a tissue of lies*?
2 weeks ago was able to draft a letter that included: “We acknowledge receipt of your letter which was expected as Mr X was discussing the same loudly on the telephone on the train from London to Manchester on Wednesday”
I was once on a train and could hear two fellow lawyers discussing very loudly the mediation they were about to attend. I learnt all about the case!
The greatest piece of legal correspondence ever written : http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/02/regarding-your-stupid-complaint.html?m=1 …
It’s a cracker, though my favourite remains: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html …
I once had someone complain to the firm I worked for, because I provided our counsel with an authority that showed they weren’t allowed to rely on WP correspondence
It was an ET costs hearing and wasn’t marked WPSATC.