Is it incompetence or is he just a really bad lier?

Don't trust probate lawyers, they lie.

Probate lawyers can be deceptive. They lie about the law. They sometimes misrepresent the law and manipulate situations in their client’s favour.

As a management consultant within financial services, I work in a regulated environment. Although I am hired by clients to act in their best interests, I am not paid to twist the rules or present false information to achieve a desired outcome. That would be unethical, corrupt, and morally reprehensible.

Throughout my career, I’ve encountered shady characters from many walks of life. When someone makes a questionable assertion that conveniently works in their favour, I’ve learned to double-check the facts. But what if you don’t have my inclination for scepticism? What if you are their client? Would you even know if the solicitor is telling the truth or simply weaving another narrative to suit their goals?

Does your solicitor promise that their actions on your behalf will succeed? And if they fail, do they admit they were wrong? Or did they know all along that the either way it would be an easy way to extend the timeline - allowing them to continue billing for another 6 months with minimal effort required on their part?

You'll probably never know.

If a solicitor is comfortable lying and misrepresenting the law under the guise of acting in their client’s interests, how do they remember to remain truthful to that one individual when they’re so adept at manipulating others?

Personally, I remain in awe and disgust at some of the claims made by one particular solicitor over the past 12 months. Despite my repeated refusals to believe his fabrications, he still insists on twisting the law in futile attempts to mislead me. What’s sad, however, is that he’s been so factually incorrect so often that I’ve begun to wonder: Is he actually trying to deceive me, or is he simply incompetent?

What if he truly believes his false claims? What if his many years of practising the same limited set of antiquated statutes have left him stagnant and incapable of correctly interpreting the law? After all, he’s been at it for over 35 years - if you met him and turned over his tie, would you find the corresponding day of the week sewn on the back?

"Our Mr Dawson has been practising in the area of Estates for well over 35 years. He is well aware of the requirements for the Administration of the Estate and from the information we have this will be relatively straight forward. The actual administration will be done by our office but of course you and your sister will both have to sign any required documents;"

That solves everything. I can rest easy now. Hopefully someone in their office knows what they are doing.

A recent example was a counter proposal and threat he made in response to a perfectly reasonable and sensible offer that I had made (which he ended up having to accept anyhow).:

Assertion: Procedural Limitations for Joint Executor Application

"Firstly from a procedural point of view it is not open at this stage for our client to apply to be joined with you as Executor under your current Application.

There has been no Grant of Probate made at this stage and therefore no
Grant to which our client to be joined"

• This statement misinterprets procedural possibilities. Dawson implies that the court must first grant individual probate before any joint application can be made, and that this would require the initial grant to be revoked and reissued.
• The arrogance of this assertion is astounding. I spotted the error immediately, but due to his dismissive nature and his rejection of expertise on matters I am well-versed in, I thought it best to decided to seek clarification directly from the court on his behalf, just in case he truly believed his own words.
• The Registrar of the Supreme Court confirmed that an existing application can be amended to include a co-executor, precisely as I had initially proposed

Effectiveness: FAIL
This assertion is clearly incorrect and does not align with the information provided by the court.

Dear Mr. Dawson,

Re: THE ESTATE

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3 May 2024. I have carefully considered your points and wish to address the assertions and proposals as follows:

Procedural Limitations for Joint Executor Application:

Your statement that it is not procedurally open for your client to apply to be joined with me as Executor under my current application is incorrect. As confirmed by the Associate to Registrar A. (email dated 14 May 2024), the existing application can be amended to include your client as a co-executor by filing an amended motion and supporting affidavit.

I request that you review this guidance and reconsider your position.

It is disappointing that you choose not to debate the substantive issues raised in my previous letter. These issues are crucial for the fair and efficient administration of the estate and need to be addressed comprehensively.

I urge you to engage with the points raised to avoid further misunderstandings and delays.

Client Seeking Sole Executorship:

Your proposal for your client to seek sole executorship contradicts the expressed wishes of our late mother and appears to be a continuation of obstructive tactics. Such an approach is unnecessary and will likely lead to further conflict and delays.

I am prepared to defend my position vigorously should this matter proceed to litigation and will contest any motion that I bear the costs of such proceedings.

In light of the court’s guidance, I propose again that we proceed collaboratively as co-executors, adhering to and respecting the intended joint administration of the estate.

I am prepared to draft and file the amended motion as required, which I believe is the most straightforward, cost-effective, fair, and equitable path forward, avoiding any further unnecessary delays or legal costs.

I look forward to your cooperation in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved.

Yours faithfully,

The Non-Resident Executor