In January 1986 I sold my home and instructed Robert Thompsons and Partners Solicitors to carry out the conveyancing.
The conveyancing was carried out by the senior partner Robert Thompson and Hubert Rodney.At the completion of sale Rodney stole my entire proceeds of sale amounting to £18,000 and used it to purchase a home for his family. He used the balance of the proceeds to invest in his property development company.
I instructed Anthony Gold Solicitors [Previously known as Anthony Gold, Lerman&Muirhead] to take over the case in September 1987. Instructing solicitor was Linda Muirhead. LM subsequently handed the case over to David Marshall who had recently qualified in September 1987. DM took over the case under the supervision of the senior partner Anthony Gold. The firm successfully recovered £30,000 from Rodney in 1989 as security for my claim.
I expected AGS to make a claim against Robert Thompson’s to recover my money, but they did not contact the firm, instead they covered up for them.
Theytook the case to the High Court in December 1990 claiming that it was a partnership dispute. I disputed this claim but they ignored me. Their trial lasted five days. At the end of it the firm kept the entire £30,000 for their fees and abandoned my case.I tried to protest at the way the solicitors handled the case but they ignored me.
I knew the firm had committed a fraud, but I had no evidence to prove it. I therefore took them to the High Court as a litigant in person for negligence in March 1997. I won the case against them and was awarded £5 by the Judge.Because the firm had previously offered me £15,000 as a settlement and the judge only offered me £5, I was by default liable to pay their entire costs.
As a result of some of the comments made by the Judge in his Judgment, I decided to carry out a thorough investigation into how the solicitors handled my case.
On 21 September 1987,when I first instructed AGLM solicitors to try to recover my money, Linda Muirhead was the instructing solicitor. I gave her a typed transcript of my evidence. She produced her own version and called it the “PROOF OF EVIDENCE”. LM made additions and alterations to the document which was not in the evidence that I had provided for her. She handed the case over to David Marshall who made his own changes to the document.
LM’s & DM’s revised document was passed to the barrister they had appointed for to me. This was an internal document and I did not become aware of it until the trial in 1997. The barrister used that revised document to produce the Statement of Claim and all the Affidavits.
Basically the firm had concocted a fictitious case and called it“The Partnership dispute”. This case was then taken to the High Court at my expense. The firm kept the entire £30,000 that they had recovered to pay themselves for their time.
I appealed against the judge’s decision in the Court of Appeal in March 1999 again as a litigant in person, this time pleading fraud. My appeal was rejected on the grounds that fraud was not pleaded in the original High Court trial.
The total costs of both cases amounted to £90,000. The firm tried to force the sale of my home to recover their costs, but eventually settled for £30,000 in February 2001, because I had young children under 18 years old and they would have had to wait until the youngest was 18 before they could sell my home.
In his defence,DM lied in his Witness Statement and under oath when questioned by the judge.
Despite approaching several firms of solicitors to assist me in recovering my money, only Richard Samuel of Samuel & Co Solicitors was prepared to respond, after looking at the documents. He charged me £6,000 between 1999 and 2002 but was not prepared to give me a legal opinion.
After exhausting all my options in terms of complaints to the various regulatory bodies, I learnt that the SRA and the Ombudsman do not investigate fraud and theft of clients’ money by solicitors. Their powers are limited to investigating poor service.
They advised me to contact the police to no avail. The Police will not assist the public when solicitors have committed a fraud or stolen their client’s money, because the Law Society has conveniently set up a special arrangement with them called aMemorandum of Understanding [MOU], these are two private entities who have decided how the public are dealt with when reporting a solicitor for fraud or any other crime to the police.
In despair I set up a website called corruplawyers.co.uk, in order to highlight to the public what the firm had done. They discovered the site and threatened me with legal action. They eventually wrote to my hosting company and threatened them with legal action.The hosting company informed me that they could no longer host the site and I was forced to close it down in June 2010.
I have since found an alternative company to host my website.