Law Society's Members Protection Management System
15 May 2004
Miss Aman Virk
Manager, Quality & Service Standards
8 Dormer Place
Your Ref. CDT/34497-2003/
Dear Miss Virk
Thank you for your letter dated 7 May '04 and I take note that you did not 'provide' Richard Hegarty with my 'phone number and I will assume you did not 'provide' him with my business name.
Let me quote from your letter regarding The Chair of the Compliance Board; "Since both were acting in their capacity as Chair of the Law Society Board, and since this was Law Society business, the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise".
Let us look at the last part of that sentence; "the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise". Are you saying that any data/information that is collected from Complainants' files over the 'telephone' ('unsecured means') by whom it is assumed are members of the Law Society, even when they are 'closed files', is legally correct? Also are you saying data from Complainants' files can be passed to any member of the Law Society for 'unrelated purposes' to their complaint providing it is not "information passing outside of the Law Society"? Or are you saying Richard Hegarty as Chair of the Compliance Board has 'special rights' that he can ignore the rules on the collection of data and use Complainants' personal data for his own personal use(s) (see 'PS' below)?
us look at the Law Society's;
of all let us look at "(people acting on
our behalf)" if you read the letter Richard Hegarty sent
to me (a copy of which I have already sent to you) he made it very
clear he was not going to be involved with a "disgruntled"
complainant so he clearly had or was not 'acting
on' the Law Society's behalf, therefore he had no reason(s)
to collect personal data on me. My telephone number and business name
are personal, they were not part of my complaint and my permission
was not given to anybody to allow them to pass it onto third parties,
secondly you are out of order by saying a member of the Law Society
who telephones the OSS and asks for such information is entitled to
be given this personal and/or unrelated information.
Let me quote you once more "I have seen no evidence that Mr Hegarty's call was anything more than an attempt to address with you an issue which you raised". You know as well as I do if Richard Hegarty thought there was an "issue" he wished to discuss he should have written to me, anyway, have you enquired what this "issue" was that was so important he had to collect my personal details and 'phone me during the evening? If he has explained this "issue" which you say I "raised" that needed to be discussed over the 'phone please tell me what it was (see 'PS' below). Let me say here, all other members of the Law Society who, in the past, wished to talk to me personally have written asking me to ring them or to give them a 'phone number they could contact me on. Why did Richard Hegarty act differently?
Let us move on to the Law Society' rules regarding the collection of data;
OSS and OSS complaint files
I assume you have investigated where, how and/or the method in which Richard Hegarty collected my personal information also the purpose that he is required to give, which I assume will identify this "issue" that you say I "raised"?
At this point as my complaint included the 'third party' that supplied data to Richard Hegarty I believe I am entitled to all correspondence/telephone attendance notes from/to Richard Hegarty so as to identify the culprit which possibly you already know.
it was not your Office that provided my personal data to Richard Hegarty
then that would leave Thos Boyd Whyte, Mr A Higgins QC or Panesar &
Co which now comes down to Breach of Confidentially and at least 'Professional
Let me refer to the letter I received on 18 February '04 from Amanda Malloy that states " our files indicate you are complaining about a solicitor who is a member of the Council of The Law Society. In these circumstances we have a special procedure governing the way we investigate such complaints. This will involve The Law Society instructing an independent solicitor to investigate your complaint". It appears again you are ignoring the Law Society's rules in as much as you are not the person who should have carried out an investigation into my complaint and also you don't appear to be a 'qualified Solicitor'?
Finally you have closed my case and while investigating my complaint you failed to send me copy(s) of any response from Richard Hegarty if in fact there was any or if you even contacted him, you never kept me informed of what was happening and three months after telling me an 'independent solicitor' will be instructed, you change or in fact you ignore the rules. You never stated that I have a right to appeal and you also never advised me I have, or gave me any information, that I can complain to the Legal Services Ombudsman if I am dissatisfied. Let me again quote the Legal Services Ombudsman's 'little blue book' with regards to the OSS; "They should carry out a detailed, unbiased investigation " Do you have a Collins English Dictionary?
Oh yes, I do know the meaning of "disgruntled" but in the context of his letter he was trying to stuff me back down the hole he assumed I had crawled out of. Let me quote how James Shutlar at The Department of Constitutional Affairs worded his letter "I am sorry to hear you remain unhappy with the legal profession. I have looked through your file and although I sympathise with your concerns " Maybe 'Dickie' was educated at 'Boot Camp', you have, I assume, heard the saying 'A Bull in a China Shop' I think that sums up Richard Hegarty.
cc Information Commissioner and The Department of Constitutional Affairs
Below is part of my website http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/news.htm,
13 and 17 September, that was the reason Richard Hegarty
rang me and the 6 November is when he rang me at home.
September I received a letter
from Mike Tyson 'SORRY' I meant the Chair of the Compliance Board, Richard
Hegarty of Hegarty & CO Solicitors, 48 Broadway, Peterborough and
he his ducking and diving so much I don't think 'poor old Mikey' is
in his class. The bottom line is Richard Hegarty has no regards for
the 'rules' and total disregard of clients and 'Client Care Agreements'
(probably the reasons I mixed him up with 'Mikey'), may be Hegarty &
CO Solicitors of Peterborough is a firm of solicitors that should be
avoided at all costs and Richard Hegarty should use the title of "Chair
of the Non-Compliance Board".
September I have today written a letter
to Mike Tyson the 'Enforcer' 'WHOOPS' I
meant to say, the Chair of the Compliance Board, Richard Hegarty telling
him he is a waste of time and I will be writing to the President of
the Law Society. I have further suggested to him, if he has not got
the 'Balls' to do the job of the 'Rules Enforcer' he should step down.
You would think Mikey 'WHOOPS' 'Dickie'
would do his job and investigate to see if there had been any "non-compliance"
of the rules before ignoring people and then referring to them as "disgruntled
November '03 'Dickie' the Law Society's
Chair of the Compliance Board rang me at home during the evening, to
me it sounded like a touch of 'intimidation'. However, if you
would like to know what he said and why you should be wary if you are
a client of, or are considering using Hegarty & CO Solicitors who
have offices in Peterborough and Stamford click here.
Question; would you say the above is "Law Society business"???? According to your letter, where you are putting a defence for Richard Hegarty instead of "carry out a detailed, unbiased investigation", that is precisely what you are saying. I believe you should have given me the option of replying to anything Richard Hegarty said, assuming that you did contact him? But then again, the Law Society rules state you should have appointed an 'independent' solicitor to investigate my complaint being as it was against a 'member of the Council of the Law Society'. Maybe you could tell me why, after saying an 'independent' solicitor would be instructed by the Law Society, you didn't comply with the Law Society rules?