Searching for a solicitor?

Residential Conveyancing

I have worked with many solicitors on residential conveyancing transactions, but have never encountered the dreadful level of service and attitude of the individuals associated with this organisation. Continually failed to respond when they said they would, documents full of errors, and an aggressive attitude attempting to trivialise their mistakes when asked for an explaination. Don't be fooled by the replies from Brethertons on this site. In my experience they have no interest in discussing or resolving issues. In fact they refuse to engage and discuss. Avoid at all costs. My advice is avoid. The partners and directors of this firm (in particular Debbie Phillips and Alison McCormack) should be ashamed of the operation they are in charge of.

Avoid! I was dropped as a client days before a crucial hearing. I questioned the impartiality of my solicitor. This cost me thousands of pounds in fees and penalties. I was suffering mental health problems, but this seemed not to matter. There was no discussion, no process to appeal, just an overnight decision to drop me as a client. I have worked successfully with hundreds of lawyers in the 33 years of my professional life, but I have never experienced behaviour and ethics so callous and unprofessional.

Unprofessional, rude, abrupt, arrogant and very despicable manner of approach. This firm uses case workers instead of actual lawyers to actually advice clients. A breach of trust and certainly unreliable team especially if you are given a person called JULIAN STERN. He is a so called senior immigration caseworker but has no interpersonal skills and is very reluctant to do any work.

0n 27th March 2014, BBK instructed a lawyer to examine a claim for professional negligence against a barrister and to examine an underlying claim for illegal charges under a 2008 contract.
The instructions to the barrister stated that documents attached included “Terms and Conditions” (undated). Bolt, Burdon, Kemp had received the 2008 Terms and Conditions, and these were in the evidence bundle provided by the Ombudsman.
Any person would conclude that it was necessary for the barrister to see the 2008 Terms and Conditions and to cry “foul” if they had not been attached. It is unclear whether they were sent or whether they were overlooked by the barrister but it is not relevant. Liability would fall upon Bolt Burdon Kemp with whom the customer had a contract. Offering an opinion on a breach of contract without seeing it would be regarded as gross negligence, according to every source consulted.
In July 2014 the customer collected from Bolt Burdon Kemp the file of his case. That file did not include the instructions from Bolt, Burdon, Kemp to the barrister.
On 13th October 2015, the Ombudsman wrote: “[The barrister] says that the validity of the 2008 terms, which she admits she did not see, had no bearing on her opinion as she says that the crucial terms she relied upon, which were relevant to the claim were those of the 2001 document ….”
There is no indication of how the barrister could possibly offer a legal opinion on a breach of the 2008 Terms and Conditions without seeing them, but the Ombudsman is a lay organisation. If the barrister had written that she used Tarot cards, the Ombudsman would not have challenged it.
On or about 20th December 2016, the Ombudsman provided to the customer the evidence bundle of all the documents which had been forwarded to them by Bolt, Burdon, Kemp. That bundle did not include the instructions sent to the barrister.
A representative of Bolt Burdon Kemp, on 29th March 2019, wrote to the customer: “However for ease of reference, I enclose a further copy of these instructions which clearly show that the Terms and Conditions … were provided to the barrister … together with full copies of all documentation provided by you in your original action.” This was the first time the customer had seen these.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the 2008 Terms and Conditions were in the bundle which was sent to the barrister. On the contrary there is evidence of “suppression” of these instructions until 2019, and failure to send relevant documents to the Ombudsman. Both of these fall into the realm of the criminal and are being referred to the Solicitor Regulatory Authority and/or the police.
The Ombudsman originally investigated the complaint against the firm BBK, and decided that there were grounds for reporting their behaviour to the SRA: The Ombudsman wrote:
I am dealing with, or have dealt with, a complaint involving the above named authorised legal professional under the Ombudsman scheme set out in Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007. I am of the opinion that their conduct should be reported to the Authorising Body to consider whether it wishes to take action against them.
Possible misconduct under S.143 of the LSA 2007 Instructed to give view on the prospects of success of litigation against former barrister. When new barrister was asked for her view the advice was negative and the firm advised that they could not act under CFA. Mr Lamford threatened to “sue” both the firm and the barrister in an email and the solicitor forwarded this email to the barrister concerned without authority.

Not much to say as it still annoys me now.. Do not waste your time or money. You’re better off dealing with things yourself as the solicitor that “helped” me was like a jet pack - non existent!

Lucky to have her speak to you let alone go to a mediation session or court hearing! Must not be bothered or had better things to do because she didn’t turn up for any hearings with me, just sent some clown instead.