Too Good to be True?

pt2537

pt2537 wrote: »

yes, it says that people make errors, but im sure you have never made an error have you?

and the fine that was handed out was paid and the matter is now old news, not that will stop the gossips of this world.

Its clear that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a real improvement in the way the firm operated to the days when there was involvement with Loan Check. If the firm was a risk then it would have been intervened and shut down. The fact that it remains trading today and more importantly has had results since then in cases such as Harrison, Wegmuller, Mayhew, Cunningham, Cresswell, Kotecha all of which are cases which people routinely rely on nowadays suggests to me that the firm has moved from where it was, and is now moving farward in the right direction.


so i prefer to look at the positives rather than the negatives

oh and btw, lets put things into the correct context.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt

that is all of the tribunal decisions, some far worst breaches there which have resulted in striking off lawyers, so on balance while what was done was wrong, it is clear that the tribunal took the right action

geoffky

A bad lawyer is still a bad lawyer and will always be one especially after the judgement i have just read..The sdt are a joke...What a great union...

pt2537

geoffky wrote: »

A bad lawyer is still a bad lawyer and will always be one especially after the judgement i have just read..The sdt are a joke...What a great union...

you never made any mistakes in life then?

If you think that we are "bad lawyers" to use your words, then i guess you must also disagree with cases like

Harrison v Link
Cabot v Bachellier
HFC v Hayes
HFO v Morgan
HFO v Robinson
HFO v Wegmuller
HFO v Evans
HFO v Filby
HFO v Lawler
Santander v Mayhew
Phoenix v Kotecha

to name but a few. I could easily list 100 plus here.

If we are sooo bad then we wouldnt have been involved in the wins outlined above since that ruling was made.

And as for reading the "judgment" mate get a life, you read a news gazette article, not the judgment, and its old news.

seamanarts

pt2537 wrote: »

you never made any mistakes in life then?
And as for reading the "judgment" mate get a life, you read a news gazette article, not the judgment, and its old news.

Of course we all make mistakes,but when we make them where its to be in the public domain then expect people to make comments about them

The news paper article was April this year so not really old news, This thread however is old, so why bring it up again. You are the one that revived this conversation. For what purpose!??!

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

You are the one that revived this conversation. For what purpose!??!

Ok

yes the article is from April this year, if you wish to be a pedant, but the issues in question taken before the tribunal were relating to circa 2010. That is what i mean old news.

And i recall it was you that brought this up by posting what you did, the last post before yours was er ooooh look 2010.

now lets drop it please? as like i said, and like the tribunal found, the firm has changed 100% from where it was then. I was not implicated in the tribunal matter, nor was my colleage Gwyn but the messages that seem to be getting passed around seem to suggest that i was in some way involved.

If i find out that anyone is libeling or slandering me, then i will take whatever action necessary to stop it.

Indeed, i have already done so once where inaccurate lies were posted.

pt2537

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/19.html

pauletruth

earlier you claimed to have no connection with the solicitors, Now you threatening to sue if you or your colleague gwyn are slandered.

You lied when you claimed not to be connected with this firm.

i draw your attention to the terms and conditions of this web site. by failing to disclose your connection with the law firm you have breached them.
if your dishonest in this matter what does this say about your other conduct.

well done getting over 10 k in costs for something that the kind folks on here could have helped the defendant for free.

geoffky

Is the ambulance chaser still around?

sc0use24

sue me ill post lies about you! (you are a great solicitor!!!) you can have half of all i own hahaha

pt2537

pauletruth wrote: »

earlier you claimed to have no connection with the solicitors, Now you threatening to sue if you or your colleague gwyn are slandered.

Did i now? if i did then i must have made an error as i have never hidden my involvement with the firm since i joined them.

You lied when you claimed not to be connected with this firm.

i draw your attention to the terms and conditions of this web site. by failing to disclose your connection with the law firm you have breached them.

Have i failed to disclose my connection? no i have advised the site team of who i am and where i work in emails

if your dishonest in this matter what does this say about your other conduct.

To suggest i am dishonest is unfair, unreasonable and without foundation.

well done getting over 10 k in costs for something that the kind folks on here could have helped the defendant for free.

Your final quote is, with respect, laughable.

The kind people on here could have done it? really? maybe your right.

However, let me point to a case which we won on appeal at the Court of Appeal which someone on these forums said exactly like you did, oh dont worry about a solicitor you can do it yourself.

Well Mr Kotecha took his case to Court before Her Honour Judge Hampton, she savaged him totally, she tore him apart and landed him with a judgment and costs. We appealed the case and won, the law report is on bailii. The people on a certain forum told him he was shafted and that was it game over

Or what about the case of Dr C, where he was told by forum users that he couldnt win his case, well we won it

I do not believe that Mr Wegmuller could have won his case with help on a forum, because at the end of the day, he did not understand the law, he could not by his own admission have fought the case at trial, and lets not forget that recently i had a case where a client had been helped on a forum which i will not name, and he lost, why? because the arguments we won on appeal with, were told to him to be of no use

If you dont like what i do for a living then that is your right, you have the right to like or dislike, but i will simply say that the clients I have represented successfully have been very very grateful for my time and assistance, i dont force anyone to instruct my firm and anyone who does does so of their own free will.