Instructed Robert Thompson & Partners solicitors to conduct the conveyancing on my home. Hubert Rodney & Mr Kennedy [senior partner] conducts the conveyancing.
Contracts exchanged on my home.
Hubert Rodney pays deposit into his private account in breach of contract for sale.
Rodney deposits balance of sale proceeds into his account.
Rodney purchases Harvard Court a flat in West Hampstead.
Rodney borrows £23,800 using the flat as security & uses it to purchase a home for him and his family. He used the rest of the money in his property development company.
I instruct Anthony Gold Solicitors [formerly registered as Anthony Gold, Lerman & Muirhead solicitors. Linda Muirhead was the instructing solicitor. She reproduces my written evidence, fabricates her own evidence and discretely adds it to my evidence. She then creates a document which she defines as Proof of Evidence and dates it 21-09-1987. The case was then handed over to David Marshall under the supervision of the senior partner Anthony Gold.
The firm instructs a barrister and sends him their instructions. They encourage him to present the case to support their version of events. They did not present the evidence to the barrister that would have proved unequivocally that the case they were preparing to take to trial was false.
If a firm of solicitors are dishonest, it is at this stage in the legal process that they can present their own version of events to the barrister [also known as counsel], rather than the true facts which was presented to them by their client. The solicitors also have the opportunity at this stage to be selective in the evidence that they present to the Barrister. Vital evidence to support my version of evidence were not presented to the barrister.
The firm has now received all the evidence from me and there are no doubts relating to the facts. However, they send supplementary instructions to counsel persuading him to go along with their version of events.
Firm produces Statement of Claim which contained statements which were untrue or not in my best interest.
Firm forces Rodney to pay £30,000 into court.
Firm takes out a charge on my home to secure their costs.
The trial based on the case concocted by the firm starts in the High Court.
The firm’s trial concluded.
The firm charged me £32,439 for their cost knowing that the case they had taken to court was false.
Letter of complaint to Solicitors Complaint Bureau [SCB] against firm.
Reply from SCB acknowledging complaint.
Response from SCB: “I do not think the bureau can help you here.”
Wrote to the Malcolm Wicks MP complaining about SCB.
SCB confirms letter from Malcolm wicks.
Letter from SCB “we cannot deal with the complaint because it is far too stale”.
Contacted Murdoch’s solicitors for advice.
Wrote to SCB again complaining about the way AGS handled my case.
Chased SCB for progress of complaint against AGS.
Reply from SCB.
Response from Murdoch’s solicitors: “you will recall that before Christmas you had made arrangements to come and collect your papers and did indeed do so”.
Letter to SCB asking them to do a full investigation into AGS solicitors.
Reply from SCB:
The solicitors Indemnity Fund [SIF] investigates compensation claims for negligence under the compulsory insurance cover which all practicing solicitors must take out. The bureau has an arrangement with the SIF for direct referral to them of complaints best Investigated by them.
SCB sends files to SIF.
Wrote to SCB informing them that I had been in touch with the SIF and the SIF informed me that “they could not trace any files sent by you relating to my case and they could not find any information registered on their computer indicating that you had been in touch with them.”
SIF confirms that they have not received any papers from SCB.
Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman requests file from SCB to investigate their handling of my case.
Letter of complaint to AGS about their handling of my case.
Letter from Anthony Gold [senior partner] closing case.
Complaint to Legal Services Ombudsman about SCB.
SCB writes to Malcolm wicks & recommends that I contact SIF direct to make a claim.
Reply from LSO agreeing to investigate case.
Letter of complaint to office of the Legal Services Ombudsman [LSO].
SCB confirms that they dispatched papers to SIF.
Legal Services Ombudsman [LSO] requests that the bureau re-constitute its file so that they can consider the bureau’s handling of my complaint.
LSO decides to investigate complaint against SCB.
Letter from Ince & co solicitors [solicitors appointed by SIF to represent AGS]. “The SIF is a company set up under the solicitor’s act 1974 to provide indemnity to solicitors against claims in respect of civil liabilities incurred in connection with their practice as solicitors.”
Reminded the SCB that I had been dealing with them from October 1993 and no progress had been made to date.
SIF replies: it is not the fund’s function to take referrals of files from the SCB. it investigates and deals with claims, either in house or through the panel of firms which acts for it.
Letter from SIF “there appears to be some confusion. The SIF is a mutual fund which insures the profession against claims of professional negligence.
LSO’S report: “in my view the bureau’s handling of Mr Burton’s complaint was marred by failure to deliver their file of papers safely to the SIF. I therefore recommend that they should pay £50 compensation.
LSO award’s me £50 compensation for the way the SCB handed my case.
I issue writ against Anthony Gold Solicitors for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.
AGS pays £5,000 into court to settle my claim.
David Marshall produces his witness statement: he made statements in this document which were blatantly untrue.
AGS pays £10,000 into court to settle my claim.
Letter from me rejecting the £15,000 offered from AGS.
16-26 June 1997
Court case Burton v AGS – Royal Court of Justice.
During the trial whilst under oath David Marshall made a number of statements to the judge which he knew were untrue.
Judgment from judge Mr Robert Smith QC Royal Court of Justice.
I had taken the firm to court for negligence because although I knew they had committed a fraud, I could not find the evidence to prove fraud. I had also taken legal action against the firm for a motor car dispute. The judgment was devastating and it was an obvious cover up. The judge awarded me £5 damages for each case making a total of £10. Because the solicitors had offered me £15,000 which I had rejected, this meant that by default I was now liable to pay the firm’s total cost of over £90,000.
I lodge an appeal in the high court against Mr Smith QC’s judgment awarding me £10.
My case referred to Bar Pro Bono unit by citizen’s advice bureau.
PRO BONE unit opinion: “your appeal has no prospect of success”.
Letter to Office for The Supervision of Solicitors [OFSS] asking them to refer matter to fraud squad.
Reply from OFSS: “this office can only investigate complaints of poor service. If you suspect that your solicitors are guilty of criminal offences then the firm should be reported to the police who are the appropriate body to investigate complaints of that nature. If the police do find there is a case against this firm then the police will report their actions to the Law Society who will take appropriate steps at this time.”
Letter from Court of Appeal notifying me of change of date for appeal to 23 November 1998.
Wrote to police at Streatham police station.
Letter from Streatham police confirming receipt of my letter.
Streatham police passes file to Charing Cross police for investigation.
Appeal hearing against judgment of Mr Smith QC. The appeal judges would not allow me to plead a case of fraud against the solicitors.
Sent details of complaint to Charing Cross police station.
Reply from Charing Cross police: “the lord chief justice has made matters clear and the only time that police will commence investigation into such allegations is when the trial judge request them to do so.”
Letter to OFSS informing them that the police informed me that they cannot commence criminal proceedings against the solicitors unless they are instructed to do so by judge.
Letter of complaint to Office for The Supervision of Solicitors.
Wrote to Russell Jones & Walker solicitors for legal advice.
Wrote to Larcomes solicitors – Portsmouth for legal advice.
Reply from Larcomes solicitors: “as explained I will not be in a position to review the papers forwarded to me and take a view on whether I am able to act for you, giving pressing commitments.”
Contacted Samuel & Co Solicitors. Richard Samuels took on the case.
AGS registers a charge on my property to secure their fraudulent costs.
Wrote to Charing Cross police station alleging perjury by AGS’S.
Reply from police: allegations of perjury will only be investigated if referred by the judge who dealt with the matter originally.
Reply from OFSS: “LCO does not believe that there is evidence to prove the allegations you have made.” The LCO has recommended that there is no evidence of professional misconduct.
Ince & Co Solicitors Acting on Behalf Of AGS Solicitors Puts A Charge On my property for £98,574.97
Letter from Legal Complaints Service: the matters about which you complain, have already been investigated by our Solicitors Practice Unit, who wrote to you on 13 november 1998.
Paid AGS £30,000 for settlement of costs instead of the £98,574.97 requested.
Paid Richard Samuels a total of £7,296.04. Richard Samuels helped me in negotiating the settlement to AGS but he did not investigate my case.
Direct Access Scheme – for barristers set up. Members of the public may now go directly to a barrister without having to involve an instructing solicitor or other intermediary. In the past it was necessary for clients to use a solicitor or other recognised third party through whom the barrister would be instructed.
Letter from Anthony Gold: “on discussing the matter with the complaints partner, we are of the view that your allegations do not constitute a complaint of poor service which we can investigate under solicitors practice rule 15, but are allegations of criminal wrongdoing, we do not see how these allegations differ from those you raised in court, and which were dismissed by the judge and the court of appeal. These allegations are completely unfounded and libellous. If repeated they would amount to defamation and cause of action to sue you for substantial damages.
Set up website: www.corruptlawyers.co.uk
Letter from Anthony Gold: “we repeat our demand that your website is taken down or that any allegations of fraud, scams, lies or any other misleading statements in relation to Anthony Gold or its employees or members are removed within 7 days. Should you refuse to do so, you leave us with no choice, but to start court proceedings to recover damages for injury to the firm’s reputation and recover our costs.
Website hosting company says they can no longer host my website.
Response from Anthony Gold: you have not provided any evidence to prove that your allegations are true. They are in fact defamatory and untrue. Your allegations that lawyers here lied and conspired against you are completely groundless.
Letter in response to my complaint against AGS solicitors from legal complaints service: “as explained to you we have already investigated your concerns we are not in a position to consider them again. You will note that in our letter of 21 February 2000 we advised the allegations you had raised were extremely serious and as such, were ones which the office would need evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to peruse them. We would only be satisfied that the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt if a criminal conviction had been obtained and as this is not the case I am unable to make a further referral to the SRA.”
AGS contacted website hosting company and forced them to close down website.
Website re-launched offshore.
Clifford Tibbert – emailed on behalf of AGS complaining of contents of website: “the whole of the editorial insofar as it alleges or implies that either Mr Marshall or his former or current partners have acted in anyway fraudulently, dishonestly, or corrupt is untrue; is likely to [and in all probability is designed to] damage the reputation of Mr Marshall and his firm and is defamatory.”
I find a direct access barrister who is prepared to look at the evidence. The barrister did not take long to advise me that I was out of time, due to the statute of limitation and that because of the passage of time.
I contacted the SRA and asked them what their role was. They were honest but deceptive; they eventually gave me the answers above.
They very cleverly change what they say they do at will. Previously they said they only dealt with Poor Service not fraud. In May 2020 they changed their mind and now say they deal with Fraud and not Poor Service. They cannot be trusted and changes their name whenever they get too many complaints.