14 December 2003

James Shutlar
Legal Services Development Division
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selbourne House
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

Dear Sir

Re: Client Care Agreement/Non-compliance of Solicitors' Rules

Thank you for your letter dated 24 November 03.

Let me first quote part of your letter "I should explain that the legal profession is independent and self-regulating". The operative words here are 'self-regulating' and you further state "The Law Society draws up and publishes the profession's rulebook". This means these rules that are made by the Law Society are to be followed not only by the solicitors' clients but by the members of the Law Society that such rules apply to as well and as you have in place a 'Rules Enforcer' (Chair of the Compliance Board) it should be reasonable to expect these rules will strictly be imposed without your using 'intimidation tactics' such as you have implied 'if you don't like it take us to the High Court'. These rules as I understand are made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls?

I would be the first to admit that I am not 'Brain of Britain' and probably my grammar is just about adequate but by now it should be clear to you what I am saying and that there must be some way solicitors' clients can, when they ask, get the Law Society's rules imposed and if they are not imposed or addressed at some stage they should not be told by an advocate of Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, such as yourself that they will have to go to the High Court when the Law Society decide not to comply with their own rules . That is bordering on, if not, intimidation in attempting to shut the Complainant up by using scare tactics.

If you once more read the first paragraph of the letter I wrote to Lord Falconer it states: - "I have been trying to establish the validity of the 'Solicitors' Client Care Agreement'" I think that is quite clear and not such a hard question for Lord Falconer to answer, and it goes on to say who and where I have sought this information from. In the second paragraph I ask: - "The 'Client Care Agreement' is clearly written and your Solicitor asks you to sign and return it, therefore I believe this must amount to being a 'contract'?" again a clear question (notice the ? ?). With Lord Falconer's background this should be something he is quite capable of answering but it appears Lord Falconer is playing the famous 'Ignore Rule' and adding strength to the Protection Racket.

Let me quote part of one of your rules: - 18.02 Breach and misconduct A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct. Consequently, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will expect its implementation as a matter of conduct.

It was stated in a 'Client Care Agreement' that I was asked to sign that I would, if for any reason I was dissatisfied with the service I received, be able to take my complaint up with Gordon Luckhurst the Senior Partner of Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors. As you clearly know by now he didn't 'honour this undertaking', he admitted in a letter to the OSS that he had not handled my complaint in an adequate fashion, or words to that effect. I believe Lord Falconer would agree Gordon Luckhurst is guilty of 'Professional Misconduct'.

In a 'nut shell' how does the solicitors' client make members of the Law Society comply with the rules? This has nothing to do with the conclusions reached by the LSO or anybody else but plain compliance of the rules by the solicitors, OSS and the LSO just as the client is forced to comply. If the client can't get the rules imposed when he asks then the system is corrupt and run by corrupt people who soul purpose is to run a 'Protection Racket' for their own at the detriment of the public.

I have published a letter at: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/shicks.htm that I sent to the OSS's Caseworker dated 10 August 2001 that shows part of my complaint concerns Gordon Luckhurst's non-compliance with the Client Care Agreement so there is no way the OSS or Zahida Manzoor were not aware that Gordon Luckhurst was guilty of 'Professional Misconduct'.

Despite my continued protests to the OSS about Gordon Luckhurst's refusal to see me they played the 'Ignore Rule' and totally refused any comment on the subject. Zahida Manzoor should have told the OSS to address this point that I continually complained about but she to played the 'Ignore Rule'.

Let me quote parts of the Ombudsman's 'little blue book', "The Legal Services Ombudsman explained" that I frequently quoted to Zahida Manzoor: - "What the ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed" the 'little blue book' further states "she will also look at any other complaints you might have about this professional body. For example, ----- they refused to investigate your complaint".

Let us look at what the OSS refused to investigate.
1 The OSS refused to investigate Gordon Luckhurst's non-compliance of the Client Care Agreement, which there is no doubt amounted to 'Professional Misconduct'.
2 They refused to investigate the collusion between their Mr Fise and my solicitors that led to me being sacked as a client on 6 June 2000.
3 As in my official complaint I had made a claim of 'negligence' against my solicitors their rules state I should have been informed and/or offered free independent, albeit only limited, legal advice. As this was not done, in my opinion to protect the solicitors, it must amount to 'Professional Misconduct' at the very least.

Complaints about negligence
Complaints of this sort should also go in the first instance to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. The OSS will review the complaint and if appropriate will refer the matter to one of the solicitors on their Negligence Panel. These are independent solicitors who have volunteered to give one hour's free advice on whether a solicitor was negligent and, if so, what to do next. Ultimately it may be necessary for you to take action in the courts to obtain compensation for the negligence of a solicitor. Enquiries should be directed to:

4 Finally they failed to investigate if there were adequate reasons for my sacking as a paying client. The OSS did find their work was inadequate, a barrister said they were negligent and incompetent, a District Judge's opinion showed there were at least 5 years of delays and there is evidence that shows they lied were deceitful and dishonest.

Let us look further at what else the Legal Ombudsman's 'little blue book' states, "She will always look at what you have to say and, if she can't help, she will tell you why". On one occasion when I asked about Gordon Luckhurst's refusal to honour the 'Client Care Agreement' she stated "it has been dealt with" when I asked 'when and how' (remember: - she will tell you why) she went back to the Law Society's favourite 'Ignore Rule' see: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ombudsman2.htm#58

I understand you are telling me that the OSS are responsible for seeing that solicitors comply with the profession's rulebook. Your advice was "…register a complaint at the OSS". As we have established that avenue has totally been exhausted and the LSO's 'little blue book' states "If you are not happy with the services you received from the Legal Services ombudsman, you should write to the Service Manager", have done that: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/omblet1.htm
But the Service manager doesn't exist and the person who now does that job "She has no authority…" see: - http://solicitorsfromhell.com/news.htm#9

A further point on 'intimidation', I am an OAP with a pension of £81.00 a week and no assets, I drive a late Citroen van the courtesy of my nephew. What Lord Falconer is doing and saying is that if I don't like my solicitors, the OSS and the LSO's Non-compliance of the Law Society's Rules I will have to take it to the 'High Court'. I believe he is using a form of 'intimidation' with the threat of having to use the High Court to get the Law Society to comply with their own rules. Let me take a quote from "Consumers' Association" "They tried to bully me with legal action for daring to complain" it appears 'intimidation' is a common practice by the Law Society. Second, tell me the duties of the Chair of the Compliance Board if it is not to see that members of the Law Society comply with the Law Society's rules?

Let me make further quotes from the "Consumers' Association" "In many cases solicitors seemed to be paying little regard to their own professional rules of conduct" also "A strong feeling that the solicitors 'closed ranks'".

While we are on about 'intimidation' and the 'rulebook' if you go to: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/dickie2.htm you will see Richard Hegarty has tried the intimidation road also if you read the confidentiality rule: -
Confidentiality: Client details must be kept confidential (not even the client's identity may be disclosed without the client's consent)
As the Law Society's 'Rules Enforcer' he has thrown that right out of the window and now has to be guilty of 'Professional Misconduct'. If you access a letter I have sent to Richard Hegarty at http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/dickie3.htm you will see I have decide to make a complaint to the OSS.

I will wait a reasonable amount of time for you to reply, if you wish, if not I will write and send a copy of this letter to the Master of the Rolls as the rules are made with his concurrence and as you mention Mr Clementi I will do the same so he will be aware of the problems, that the Law Society refuse, to the detriment of the solicitors client, to comply with their own rulebook, when he does his report by December 2004. However I will continue writing letters to various people I will start an e-mail campaign and continue my impressions and thoughts on my web site that is accessible all over the world to show just how corrupt and deep rooted the Protection Racket is within the British Law Society.


Yours sincerely