Goldsmith Building Temple,

Mr Antony Higgins QC

Mr Higgins conducted my case against the Defendants in August 2000 at Dartford County Court House, in hindsight my only complaint on that score was he allowed the Defendants, being as they were ‘debarred’ from using any of their own evidence, to produce and use in Court a plan I had previously given them that had obviously been altered by them. As the Defendants had after seven years disposed of their assets and had already decided on the bankruptcy route, it would have made very little difference whatever he had done in Court.

After the trial I asked Mr Higgins to give an ‘opinion’ on Thos Boyd Whyte’s (TBW) handling of my case up to 8 June 2000 when they sacked me as a paying client. At this point I had intentions of suing TBW for ‘negligence’, and from a previous meeting at Mr Higgins QC's office he was very aware of my disatisfaction with their work. When I asked him at that time if, in his opinion, TBW had been incompetent amounting to negligence, he thought for a moment nodded his head and said yes. It was on this basis I eventually asked him for an ‘Opinion Report’.

To my amazement Mr Higgins ‘Opinion Report’ was more like a ‘defence’ for TBW and as I was, and still am, in possession of my file it was plain to see he had based his ‘opinion’ on a considerable amount of obvious lies from my file and nowhere in his report did he label TBW ‘negligent’. I collated all the evidence to show his report was inaccurate, the Legal Ombudsman would later agree, and sent it to him. He returned it saying he will only take instructions through a Solicitor, I returned it once more through my current solicitors, Panesar & Co. After already having paid Mr Higgins £800+VAT for an ‘inaccurate’ report, he now said he wanted another £250+VAT to re-look at it. I explained I didn’t believe I should have to pay for an Opinion Report that was inaccurate and based on lies, in short it didn’t matter what I said he refused to rewrite it.

Ann Abraham, who was at that time the Legal Services Ombudsman, would later state in a letter she wrote to me that Mr Higgins' QC report was 'inaccurate' and brings into question the reliability of his 'Opinion Report'.

I think it appropriate to repeat a comment by Simon Monty QC at this time "This goes to emphasise not only the need to pursue and prosecute litigation claims promptly, and not to rely on leaving the commencement of proceedings until the last minute...", now I wonder why Mr Higgins QC in his 'Opinion Report' believes taking 3 years to start proceedings and after almost 7 years sacking the client because he is complaining is acceptable.

At this point it is worth mentioning The Law Society's 'Client's Charter' for it states: - "put your interest first when representing you", obviously Mr Higgins QC forgot the 'fundamentals' or maybe when you take on a 'member of the law society' 'Client's Charter' and 'Solicitors Rules' all go out the window along with the Legal Ombudsman's 'little blue book'. Mr Higgins had to be aware that being has my solicitors had not complied with the 'Client Care Agreement' they were Guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' you have to ask yourself why he kept quiet about it. Part of the 'Protection Racket'?
I took my complaint to The Bar Council and in his defence Mr Higgins QC wrote a letter to them, he could now not stop shouting that TBW were ‘negligent’. On four occasions he used the word ‘negligent’ including ...they were not following his instructions and their failure to prosecute his claim with reasonable vigour was negligent”, also “The fact is they had, in my opinion, been negligent”. If Mr Higgins had said as much in his opinion report I would have sued Thos Boyd Whyte, but he didn’t and by this time it was too late.
The reason I asked Mr Higgins to give an 'Opinion' on Thos Boyd Whyte's handling of my litigation was because I strongly felt there was a case they had been 'incompetent' and I expect him to use evidence only from my complaints file not opinions and lies contained in it to put a defence for my solicitors. Ann Abraham who was the Legal Services Ombudsman at the time called it "inaccurate" and she went on to say 'brought into question its reliability'. It appears at this time while Mr Anthony Higgins QC was writing this 'Opinion Report', which I believe comes under 'Client Confidentiality', the OSS were informed I was seeking 'Professional Advice' (from Mr Higgins). If Mr Higgins informed the OSS I was seeking advice from him then he must have been in violation of the Lawyer/Client 'Confidentiality Rules', when I asked the OSS, which was by now the CCS, they refused to give me any information on how they came into possession of this information (Freedom of Information and all that Yeah Right). King Richard the Information Commissioner went along with this and said there was 'no contravention of the Data Protection Act'

A final complaint I made concerning Mr Higgins was when arrangements were made by his Clerk for myself and my Solicitor to visit his office for a meeting. A genuine error by Mr Higgins Clerk found that on that day Mr Higgins was also in Court, Mr Higgins Clerk apologised and told both my Solicitor, and myself, to send our expenses for the day to Mr Higgins who would reimburse us, this was followed up with a letter of confirmation. At the end of the day he refused to reimburse me and passed the debt he incurred with his instructing solicitors for that day, around £300.00, on to me including the VAT charged on this amount. I supplied all necessary evidence in support of my claim but I never was paid, I believe that was dishonest.