Home Page

Janet Paraskeve is aware that Gordon Luckhurst in failing to honour the Client Care Agreement is guilty of professional misconduct. Click here to see some of her pledges and then you will wonder if she as got all her marbles.

18.02 Breach and misconduct A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct.

Janet Paraskeve never replied to this letter.

17 November 2003

Ms Janet Paraskeva
Chief Executive
113 Chancery Lane

Your ref: 196/PW-C

Re: Client Care Agreement

Thank you for your letter dated 14 November 2003, let us look at this letter, it starts with a heading "Client Care Agreement" so far so good. Now we read the content that is your second-hand version, my knowledge being first hand but I agree with what you state. If I am agreeing with you just what is my problem, I had better read this letter again. The heading is right "Client Care Agreement", the Law Society's 'Client's Charter' states "make every effort to explain things clearly, and in terms you can understand, keeping jargon to a minimum". Just a minute I don't understand, Janet Paraskeva is now using 'legal jargon' so it's back to what Lord Falconer stated, "someone who doesn't understand the process, therefore must be wrong". Oh dear I had better get help in understanding this letter, yes it is confirmed there is no mention of the question I asked except in the heading "Client Care Agreement".

So what conclusion do I come to? Oh yes it's that rule I have continually encountered that the Law Society frequently uses, yes you know the one, the "Ignore Rule" that if you are successful the Complainant just goes away or, as you are attempting, the Complainant forgets what the complaint was. Anyway what can the Complainant do as we (Law Society) hold all the 'Aces' and if we 'Ignore' them they can't do a thing. Wrong, for as you know the art of winning a war is 'communications' and from the 'blather mouthing' within the Law Society you have had it sewn up for years, but now with the advent of the 'Internet' the potential is immense, one of your 'Aces' has now gone. Ace number two, all we now need is a 'Command Centre', not a task I relish but if I have to I will take it on. The 'playing fields' would appear to be levelling out. Just one other point Lord Falconer would do well to remember is that the past has a nasty habit of coming back and haunting you, for instance, at the present time the 1980's have come back to haunt Margaret Hodges MP.

As you clearly know all I am trying to do is establish the validity of the "Client Care Agreement" and, as you are asked to sign and return a copy to the solicitors, if it amounts to a binding 'contract'? From the OSS, Ombudsman, Chair of the Compliance Board who referred to me as a "disgruntled complainant", the Deputy Vice President and the President of the Law Society also yourself, the Chief Executive, and to Lord Falconer the Lord Chancellor they are all applying the Law Society's favourite "Ignore Rule". Tell me what are you hiding or does 'The Solicitors Protection Racket' have a blanket cover over the whole of the Law Society members? At this point you will probably tell me Zahida Manzoor is a 'Lay Person' and owes no allegiance to the Law Society, pull my other leg it's got bells on it. She was appointed by Lord Chancellor in March this year as the Legal Ombudsman also he has, in the face of opposition, appointed her as head of this new Oflaw which is supposed to make the complaints procedures more efficient, which means Complainants will be treated even harsher and you are trying to tell us 'peasants' she owes no allegiance to the Law Society. Your 'Motto' must be 'Don't do as we do, do as we say'.

In case you didn't read the letter I wrote to Lord Falconer, because the letter you wrote to me does not in any way relate to that letter, I have put the web page address below for you so you can have another attempt to answer, hopefully in full, what I asked. If not I will rewrite to Lord Falconer for a reply to my letter dated 25 October '03: - "www.solicitorsfromhell.com/lordfolconer1.htm"

The web address below refers to an article on "Tony's Crony" (not my words) and a comment states "His reputation was of a man with a razor sharp mind, who could both master a brief and get to the nub of a problem very quickly", having had that said I or anyone else would not believe for one moment that Lord Falconer is not aware of the problem and understands just what I have been asking for an answer to.

Let me quote part of the last part of your letter: - "in the absence of new issues or fresh evidence, the matter will remain closed" now let me quote from the Legal Services Ombudsman's 'little blue book' "What the Ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed…". Now come on "Tony's Crony" will see at a glance that this is all about Zahida Manzoor's failure to address, despite her 'little blue book', all of my complaints in the first instance so what good would "new issues or fresh evidence" be at this stage if the Complaints Procedures didn't 'address' the original 'issues'? We both know what would happen, just what you are doing now, applying that favourite "Ignore Rule" just as you are doing with the question of the validity of the "Client Care Agreement", may be I will get my local Tory MP to ask Tony Blair in Parliament for an answer. Tony being an ex-QC must have an opinion if not he could ask Cherie.

During the next few weeks I will revamp the 'Home page' of my web site, the reasons being when I started this site I believed only the OSS was operating a 'Solicitors Protection Racket' and the Ombudsman rode 'shotgun' so to speak, but I now believe, and time will tell, the corruption goes right to the top and this 'Oflaw' being introduced to make the system more efficient is just an excuse to close up the gaps and make life worse for the complainants.

Yours sincerely

X X Xxxx

Copy of this letter at: - "http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/paraskeva1.htm"