Hi,
it doesn’t calrify it, unfortunatly.
First it was mentioned a pro-bono case, with a contract to sign, not a letter.
The Solicitor interupted the meeting, and said they couldn’t help, since
– The case was to old, she said.
I explained, that I hadn’t been ignorant, and then the solicitior said
the University coultn’t
help, due to that:
– The case was to complex.
I suspect that the Solicitor just didn’t want to help, and made up excuses.
I didn’t want to start an arguement in the meeting, that’s why I’m
complaining about this now,
instead of in the meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Mr Ribskogg,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your email. Regarding the matters that you raise, I have
> contacted the supervising solicitor who tells me that during the course of
> the interview, you explained that you had already spoken to the CAB and two
> separate solicitors but had not been happy with the advice you received. In
> addition to your concerns regarding employment issues, you also discussed a
> potential Crown Court proceeding. The reference to ‘Nature of the Case’ is
> to the fact that your concerns contained wider issues than employment which
> fall outside of the areas of expertise of the Law Clinic.
>
>
>
> The Law Clinic is intended to provide an advice letter that is prepared over
> two weeks. The Client discusses a concern/issue/claim with the students who
> then go away and research the matter and respond to that concern in writing.
> This was explained during the interview and you agreed that the Law Clinic
> was not the correct forum for you as it was unlikely we could provide the
> level of advice/support you required.
>
> I trust this clarifies the situation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Marie Ball
>
> Clinic Administrator
>
> Liverpool Law Clinic
>
> lawclinic@liverpool.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> Sent: 07 March 2009 14:47
> To: Law Clinic
> Subject: Re: Advice letter
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> thank you for the advice-letter!
>
>
>
> I’ve been reading through it now, and thought that I would contact the
>
> LSC, for further advice.
>
>
>
> But, there was a couple of things that I didn’t understand, from the
>
> meeting and your letter,
>
> that I was just wondering about if you have the chance to explain about.
>
>
>
> The solicitor said in the meeting, that the case was to big for the
>
> university to give advice on,
>
> since I had been ‘mis-lead’ by the Police and the CAB and some
>
> law-firms, and therefore
>
> didn’t contact the Employment-tribunual within three months.
>
>
>
> But couldn’t the case be run as a stand alone employment-case even if
>
> it was delayed due to
>
> that I was mis-lead by the Police etc?
>
>
>
> My second question is that you mention ‘the Nature of the Case’, in
>
> your letter, and say that the
>
> Law Clinic can’t deal with the case, due to the Nature of the Case.
>
>
>
> But I can’t say exactly that I understand what you mean by this term,
>
> and I would like to explain
>
> this, what you mean, to the LCS etc, so I was wondering if you could
>
> please explain to me what
>
> you mean with the term ‘the Nature of the case’, that you mention in
>
> the advice-letter.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for you help and thanks in advance for your help with
>
> answering these questions!
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr Ribskogg,
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Please find attached letter of advice from the Liverpool Law Clinic.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Yours sincerely,
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Marie Ball
>
>>
>
>> Administrator
>
>>
>
>> Liverpool Law Clinic
>
>>
>
>> lawclinic@liverpool.ac.uk
>
>>
>
>>
Erik Ribsskog 