|The Law Society Consumers Complaints Services that acts for the Protection of Lawyers|
|"Solicitors from Hell" .com|
31 July 2006
Dear Ms Manzoor
Re: Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board
Having received no reply to my letter dated 12 July I have been advised to collate all relevant information and should point out to you that your lack of co-operation in supplying or advising the CCS to supply the necessary information/documents that by law should have been sent to me and were subsequently requested has/is causing undue delays for which you must take responsibility.
Besides Richard Hegarty's response stating his version of the evening 'phone call he made to me on the 6th November '03, that I have requested several times, I would like the contents of the contact that the CCS made with you just prior to 31st March '05 also the second report you sent to the CCS on 21 September '05, that the CCS stated you should have sent me, and the content of the reason(s) why they (CCS) contacted you again just one month later (approx 27th October '05). This information should have been sent to me at the time and I did write and complain to you on the 5th April '05 less than one week after the CCS wrote to inform me they were in contact with you (see Doc's 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13 that I recently sent you).
In your letter dated 17th May '06 you say that part of the reason the CCS contacted you was, it appears, to ask your advice on 'jurisdictional issues'. As you have no legal qualifications or legal training why would the 'Law Society' ask your advice on a legal 'issue' and why did they contact you on two separate occasions over the 9/10 months period it took you to consider it? You further speak of the Data Protection Acts but as you know 'Duty of Care' for data held by the CCS is covered by the Law Society's 'Data Protection Notice' also all Data Controllers must comply with a Set of Enforceable Rules known as the 'Eight Principles' which I have frequently mentioned. I'm sure the Law Society would be aware of this so for you and the Law Society to say they (CCS) are not responsible for 'Duty of Care' of data files in their possession they are with your agreement trying to put up a 'smoke screen'.
However, I think it has been established by you and the CCS that Richard Hegarty got my business name and telephone number from the internet which meant he first of all had to access a website such as "http://whois.domaintools.com" or similar then enter my website 'web address' which would give him, on behalf of the Law Society, my business name and my telephone number that enabled his evening 'phone call. At this point I believe by his actions that clearly are connected to the using of my 'website' gives validity to my claim he telephoned me solely in connection with remarks I had made about Hegarty & Co on my website and not to "discuss" with me an "issue" which I had "raised". If you do not wish to correct this assumption I will assume I am correct and will write to the President of the Law Society to ask about the methods the Law Society now use in gaining personal information on people so they can then ring that person during the evening with an intimidating attitude just because they had asked a member of the Law Society Board a question on their rules (the question is at the top of the letter I wrote you on the 30th May '06 Doc.20 in your possession). I will also ask the Ethics Committee to comment on the Law Society's actions for obtaining information on individuals from external sources.
It would appear that you and the CCS consider it legitimate for the Law Society to access information from any other source outside of the Law Society, although in your report dated 18 January '05 you do ask the question, concerning my business name and 'phone number, " , they (CCS) should then turn their attention to the issue of whether or not he (Richard Hegarty) had a legitimate reason to possess it". This is I believe a very important issue that needs addressing which I would like an answer to. If you look at the letter I wrote to you on 20 February '06 which had enclosed a copy of my letter to the CCS (Doc's 18 and 19 in your possession) I clearly complained about this issue and if Richard Hegarty "had a legitimate reason to possess" my details that were gained by doubtful means.
As my website features in my complaint (accessing of personal information to be used by the Law Society) let me point you to its origins, if you access 'solicitorsfromhell.com/news.htm' and look at the first entry it states;
June '03 I receive a letter from the Ombudsman's office which says all my complaints have been dealt with but this simply is not true and at this point this 'Website' was born.
The next few entries show the rules were not being followed to the extent that you were lying and a link on '10 June 2003' is to the letter I wrote to your office dated 10 June '03 that shows 'collusion' was prevalent from the beginning.
Let me quote you from published articles which I previously quoted in full in my letter dated 20th Feb '06 (Doc.19 in your possession);
I believe 'fairness' and 'transparency' have not been forthcoming to the extreme of the law being ignored to the extent of 'available evidence' being withheld and/or being hidden, so let me quote the law once more "When a public body is investigating a complaint all evidence must be available for all concerned". Let me also quote the Lord Chancellor's comment regarding solicitors' clients which it would appear the Law Society and yourself greatly rely upon; "someone who doesn't understand the process, therefore must be wrong".
In my previous letter I referred to the people at the CCS as 'halfwits' it appears you lend creditability to this statement by stating that Chancery Lane should "focus more effort on further developing the skills of caseworkers rather than distracting attention from their work "
Finally, bearing in mind you have warned me about 'time limits' in taking action against your decision let me comment on the final paragraph of your report dated 18 Jan '05 where you state "Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 also requires the Law Society to inform the Ombudsman within three months of this letter of what action they have taken to comply with my recommendations". There was clear substantial evidence of collusion between your office and the CCS for the following twelve months and not until I sent a copy of one of their letters to Mace & Jones Solicitors was there any movement. There is no reference to referring back or 'colluding' with the Ombudsman just what 'action' they (CCS) have taken, so let us break up that statement "within three months what action they have taken" obviously 'no' "action" was taken for 12 months, again bearing in mind your criticism of the Law Society in the area of delays, what 'action' have you taken or are likely to take for non-compliance of your instruction concerning non-compliance of 'Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'? Then we come to "to comply with my recommendations" if you read my letter to the CCS dated 25 Jan '06, recent copy I sent you (Doc.18), you will see they obviously didn't understand your "recommendations", but then again you read their report and read more there than I did and when I ask questions you find ways not to give answers by accusing me of making 'serious allegations'. My final conclusion is if this was football it appears the 'Referee' just happens to be 'Team Manager' for the Law Society CCS F C.
It appears 'Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990' is being ignored, the supplying of all 'relevant information' to me during the course of the investigation has not been complied with and my several requests for all 'relevant information' under the 'Freedom of Information Acts' have been refused. I believe anybody who deliberately and frequently violates the law would be classified as a 'criminal'.
Let me quote from your 'little blue rule book' "She will always look at what you have to say and, if she can't help, she will tell you why".
The Law Society and others have removed or alterd many pages that have links to them... Iwonder why?