Name and Shame UK

We expose the dirty deedsters

More complaints about other solicitors

Current Topics

Top of page

Previous page

What a dishonest bunch!

We get lots of complaints about dishonest solicitors so we have decided to include this new page to let visitors sound off about their problems.

Our correspondents write ...

Soloar, London writes:

I came across your website a couple of days ago. Congratulations for producing it.

Last year I got a strange letter from a solicitor. His client was a businessman I had met, spoken to or even thought of for about 3 years!!!

Anyway the letter was long and full of threats and demands. The case they were making was less clear. In fact the whole letter never gave one single detail about what they wanted to sue for. The letter wasn't proofread and when it finally did try to say one legal thing, it contradicted what was said in a previous paragraph.

Anyway I paid about 1,500 UK pounds to see a solicitor about it. He wrote a short letter simply saying "no evidence, no detail". We never heard from them again. They didn't even have the courtesy to say they had dropped the case.

As I was about to do university exams at the time I was rather annoyed. I cancelled the exams due to the worry. Apart from harassing me, nothing was achieved by anyone.

I presume the solicitor's letter I got would be called a "professional lie". They missed out important details and the whole direction was misrepresentation. Given the solicitor's client had injured me (via negligence) over 3 years ago, I thought the whole thing was in bad taste. Not only had they wasted months of my time when I couldn't work but they were coming back to disrupt the exams I was taking.


Soloar, London writes again:

Just to add something to my last post, the solicitor who sent me a threatening letter was self-employed and was not operating in his own registered company. His fictitious operating name was registered with the Law Society, but I checked and it wasn't registered at Companies House. After all the nasty threats, this guy didn't even sign a signature - it was just a line, and not a very expressive line at that. Plus he didn't put his real name on the letter, just the fictitious name. Presumably as he is self-employed (no company) this name must have been given to the Inland Revenue.

I always thought that when writing a letter etc. you had to give both your REAL NAME and the NAME REGISTERED WITH INLAND REVENUE - not just the latter. I suspect the solicitor was ashamed of his letter and didn't want his signature or real name associated with it. But is this illegal? Just to give a fictitious name and NOT your real name.

Editorial Comment:

My experience of solicitors is that they all sign letters with a squiggle and never give their name - usually just the name of the company. I don't know if this is illegal but in my book it means they don't have the guts to stand by their threats, i.e. they don't have any principles. Ed.

Rex Botham writes:

I wish I'd found your site a damn sight sooner than I have. Whilst there are a number of issues I've been tackling, the biggest has involved Creation Consumer Finance Ltd based in Belfast and their solicitors, Greenhalghs, who are now based in Skelmersdale.

Between them, they have caused so much distress to my wife and myself over the way they treated us, so much so that it has now become a personal issue. I kid you not - such is my anger I have come close to crossing the line and physically smacking three of them - not good idea, I know and it won't happen because I have my wife to think about but I still see red and wonder how I can take them on properly. Or should I leave it alone?

Editorial Comment:

We might be able to help if you give us some details. Perhaps other visitors may also have had dealings with these companies

Ana Emery of Manchester writes:


Rex Botham of Huntingdon writes:

The national infrastructure is an absolute disgrace from politicians, banking and financial services, the debt collection industry and solicitors, particularly during this recession where some folk are treated with a heavy-handed attitude. These are public servants and must be held accountable and prevented from using the law for their own ends.

Solicitors especially should disclose their fees and earnings like everyone else and should be both monitored and disciplined by an independent body made up of people from all walks of life as well as legal experts. Solicitors who use and abuse the law either for their clients or the firm's own ends must be dealt with robustly and without hesitation.

Editorial Comment:

The groups you have mentioned are not public servants in the true sense of the words but they are offering services to the public and should behave as such. Unfortunately, they are all self-regulating so nothing will change. Crooks always look after their own.

Christopher Barrs of Devon writes:

My problem is with land registry solicitors - Giles Berry and Andrew Pain of Land Registry Plymouth. They deliberately suppressed information to prejudice a case against ourselves. They themselves forced our case to go before the land registry adjudicator and then suppressed information that would have benefited us immensely and completely changed the case.

We found this information a couple of years later and we can prove beyond doubt that it would have completely destroyed the other party's case. We were legally represented at the hearing and the information was never divulged to any of us, even though our solicitor actually wrote and asked land registry Plymouth if the third party (source of the suppressed information) had been contacted. Land Registry never responded to the letter.

William C Mabey of South Croydon writes:

I agree about crooked solicitors being in the majority, I am also of the opinion that the whole of the legal system is corrupt, right up to and including the Ministry of Justice.

All I went to a firm of solicitors for back in 1986 was to represent me in an arbitration claim for work done and not paid for. The matter involved over 15 firms of solicitors around 105,000 in legal fees and the matter nearly went to Court in 1999. The Solicitors Coningsby's claimed I owed them 11,000 just before the trial, and I had no alternative but to settle for the compensation offered by the Law Society.

Afterwards I had to go to the High Court to find out what the legal fees had been used for ... only to discover I had been double charged. I was subsequently repaid 17,000. Worse was to follow.

The solicitors had forged my signature on the trial disclosure documents and because the Law Society would do nothing, I made a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. What a mistake that was. They claimed I had no evidence (despite being sent the original document). They kept the evidence and now I cannot get the evidence back. I was obliged to make over 50 complaints regarding the conduct of these solicitors and received compensation amounting to thousands of pounds from the Law Society, and then nothing was done. One firm of solicitors claimed they never received any Court documents regarding this professional negligence matter.

No client has any real chance of justice, all solicitors think of is the bottom line, how much can they get out of the client. I did make a complaint to the Law Society about not being able to view an account statement from Coningsbys. The Law Society wrote to me stating that clients accounts are confidential and clients have no right to view them.

Editorial Comment:

As we say on many occasions, you cannot trust most solicitors and nothing will ever be done to make them accountable for their actions.

John M. Fox of Grimsby writes (on 3/1/2012):

I give my full support to this site and its purpose. If the Law Society wasn't corrupt to the core then dodgy solicitors wouldn't feel they have a free rein to rip off and lie to clients as they certainly do. I shall add my account of dodgy practices.

Editorial Comment:

Thank you for your support. Look forward to hearing more.

Paul Fallon of London writes:

Helen Mulcahy of Hill Hofstetter gave defective advice and made misleading statements which resulted in multi-million pound claims being made against her by Notts County Football Club (NCFC) by reason of the Munto Frauds.

Mulcahy also acted for the fraudster, Russell King, now on the run in Qatar, and was his public apologist in connection with newspaper investigations into King's insurance fraud conviction in Jersey. Mulcahy told the newspapers he was a reputable businessman. NCFC lost millions.

Editorial Comment:

Solicitors prove over and over again that they have no ethics or morals when it comes to protecting crooks. It's all about earning money ... by any means. If you Google 'Helen Mulcahy' and 'Russell King' you will find lots more information, including stuff about Qadbak and Munto Finance. You will also learn that NCFC planned to bring multi-million pound claims as a result of defective advice and misleading statements given by its then solicitor, Helen Mulcahy of Hill Hofstetter. Mulcahy was also solicitor for Russell King and was involved with the failed attempt to purchase the BMW/Sauber Formula One team.

Sport can indeed be a dirty business!

"Many men stumble across the truth ... but most manage to pick themselves up and continue as if nothing had happened."

Winston S Churchill

Google Ad

Google Ads