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 assist me in recovering my money in September 1987. Instructing solicitor was Linda Muirhead, one of the partners. 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.
They took the case to the High Court in December 1990 claiming that my claim was about a partnership dispute. I disputed this claim but they ignored me. Their trial lasted five days. At the end of the trial the firm charged me £32, 439 for their fees.
I knew the firm had committed a fraud against me, 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 a total of £10, £5 for each for the two cases I had brought against them. Because the firm had previously offered me £15,000 as a settlement and the judge only offered me £10, I was by default liable to pay their entire costs which was over £90,000.
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 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 our home.
In the end the firm conned me out of £62,439.
The architect of the scam was LM. I produced a typed transcript describing the events that took place and gave it to her. LM took my evidence, fabricated her own evidence and concocted a fictitious case which they took to trial.
The revised documents were sent to the barrister that they had appointed to advise them.
In their instructions to the barrister the firm advised him on how to proceed with the case and withheld crucial evidence which would have proved unequivocally that the case they were presenting was false. They were able to successfully accomplish this because solicitors are not obliged to disclose to their client’s details of their instructions to the barrister. This puts the client at a great disadvantage because they will have no idea that they are being defrauded at this very crucial, stage of the legal process.
If you approach another firm of solicitors for legal advice after being ripped off by one firm, they will not assist you. If you do find one that offers to help, they will take your money but they will not give you any legal advice.
In his witness statement DM lied despite making a statement of truth.
In court DM told a number of lies under oath whilst being cross examined by the judge.
Both the Firm and the Law Society advised me to contact the Police to get my case investigated. This advice was untrue.
The Police will not assist the public when solicitors have committed a fraud or stolen their client’s money, because they do not have any legal powers to investigate solicitors, they will advise you go back to the original judge that tried the case.
They are protected by the Limitations Act.