Law Society Ethics Committee
Below is some contents of a letter I sent to the Law Society Ethics Committee on the 1 August 2005. If you read what is highlighted in red is the joke of the century, how can a complaint be resolved within the solicitor's office if the Senior Partner continually refuses to see the client. When the client ask the Law Society for help they tell him to send them an 'official' complaint (remember; "The CCS help you if you have a problem with your solicitors"), if you take this advice the Noble 'Ethics Committee' will then advise the solicitors to sack the client because there now exists a 'Conflict of Interests'. What happens next, the solicitors sack the client, the CCS (Consumers Complaints Service) that is run by the Law Society will ignore the client for a couple of years then refuse to investigate the reason they told the client to make the complaint in the first place (non-compliance of Practice Rule 15 see below) and it isn't no good making an appeal to Zahida Manzoor, Legal Services Ombudsman, if your gender is male for she doesn't treat men equal to women.
At this Point you could try 'Dickie the Chair' (Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, 'Rules Enforcer'), it might take some effort to get him to reply, when he does reply he will call you a "disgruntled complainant" and he will use the internet to get your personal detail so he can ring you one evening with a threatening attitute, this is all done on behalf of the Law Society and no doubt with the blessing of the Noble 'Ethics Committee'. Don't try to complain about 'Dickie' because the CCS, Zahida Manzoor and 'Dickie' will carry out an investigate behind 'closed doors'.
When a firm of solicitors do not comply with 'Solicitors Practice rule 15' ie. the Senior Partner does not turn up for a pre-arranged meeting then twice more refuses to see the client, the CCS then advise the client to make a complaint because rule 15 was not complied with and 14 months later the CCS misuse the client's complaints file by passing information from this 'unopened file' to the solicitors who then pass this information that should only be used in connection with the client's complaint to the Ethics Committee who will advise the solicitors, over the 'phone, they should sack the client because the content of this file has brought about an 'Inherent Conflict of Interests'. Remember an 'Inherent Conflict of Interests' was brought about by following the advice of the CCS and by the Law Society's Data Protection Notice the complaints file should only have been used "in connection with the complaint".
The Ethics Committee didn't hesitate or investigate before they advised the client should be sacked and two years later when the CCS got round to an investigation they would not investigate the reason they advised that a complaint should be made against the solicitors as did the Legal Services Ombudsman: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Ethics_Committee.htm
What is your advice to solicitors' clients when the system doesn't work because the Law Society do not comply with their own rules???
Finally when I asked Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board (Rules Enforcer??), about the rule 15 he first of all ignored me but when prompted by Kevin Martin, Vice President of the Law Society, he replied and called me a "disgruntled complainant" because I complained about 'non-compliance' of rule 15 and some time later he telephoned me during the evening in an attempt to intimidate me (the CCS, Richard Hegarty and Zahida Manzoor are at present carrying out an 'investigation' behind 'closed doors' between themselves).
I'm told by the CCS Richard Hegarty got my personal information (home telephone number etc.) from the internet and as Aman Virk at the CCS said Dickie was acting on Law Society business when he rang me and got my details off the internet may be if you want to respond to the contents of this letter you could use the internet for any information you might need. Remember it appears to be 'Ethically Correct' for members of the Law Society to ring complainants with a threatening attitude as well as the Law Society to gain information from the internet about complainants for Law Society use (Aman Virk's opinion on behalf of the Law Society).
You people certainly talk a lot of 'S**t'