Law Society's Ethics Committee

Ethics Committee
This body, as I understand it, is to see that actions carried out by members of the Law Society are "ethically" correct. 'Ethics' = principles, morals, beliefs, moral principles, moral values, moral code.

Let us look at the Ethics Committee's involvement in my sacking by my solicitors, Thos Boyd Whyte of Bexleyheath in Kent, on 8 June 2000. My currant Solicitor having resigned over the way I had been treated, Gordon Luckhurst put in charge of my 7yrs litigation a new raw young Assistant Solicitor who had no training in litigation or any experience in anything to date and her sole remit being to sack me as quick as possible. She rang the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (henceforth known as the 'Protection Society') on 7 June 2000 and despite the Law Society's rules on the 'collection' and the 'use' of data/information held by the OSS (now the CCS) a Mr Fise gave information, over the 'phone, that should not have been 'revealed' at that stage. This information, given from my 'unopened' file or that it even existed, as it had not come under 'investigation' at that point, by this Mr Fise to my new raw Assistant Solicitor would be conveyed to the Ethics Committee who advises her that there was an "inherent conflict of interests". You can see this 'Noble' body of people with no hesitation, investigation or contact with the Protection Society have decided on "hearsay" from my solicitors that there is an 'inherent conflict of interests' and the client should be 'Sacked'. 'Yeah Right'. If you look at rule 18.02 the Ethics Committee ignored the rules when they gave advice to my solicitors.

What does the Law Society's rules say on the use of information that is submitted to the OSS by a Complainant: - "We will use the information you give us to investigate your complaint. We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent". It is very clear information was collected from my complaints file by my ex-Solicitor for an unrelated purpose and the personal gain of Thos Boyd Whyte. If I broke into somebody's home, stole information to use against the owner of that property for my personal gain, I believe I would end up in prison. On the other hand Thos Boyd Whyte broke into my complaints file and collected data to use against me for their personal gain, the Law Society gave them the means, the Ethics Committee advised them and they all believe they have these rights, these people are nothing less than 'common criminals'. I was led to believe my complaint and its contents would only be used in the investigation of my complaint against Thomas Boyd Whyte Solicitors, not used to get me sacked by them within three days.
. . . . .
. . . .. .

Let us look at the facts that this 'Noble' Ethics Committee would consider amounted to an 'inherent conflict of interests'. Gordon Luckhurst the Senior Partner in charge of my case had refused 3 requests, which was my right, to see him to answer questions on my dissatisfaction at how my litigation had been and was being handled. I contacted the 'Protection Society' who gave no assistance but the third time I rang them they told me to send them an official complaint that they would then sit on for over 2 years. I sent a complaint to the Protection Society in May 1999, information was taken from my complaint file by Mr Fise and given to my new raw Assistant Solicitor on 7 June 2000 she passed it verbally to the Ethics Committee the same day and on the Ethics Committee's recommendation that there was an 'inherent conflict of interests' I received a letter the next day (8 June) sacking me and finally my case file was handed to a Caseworker to start an investigation, which amounted to a cover up, on 30 July 2001. -- See 'Solicitors' Code of Conduct'.

If you access it states: -
Consumer Complaints Service ---------- (The Law Society have now removed the next line from their website)
The Consumer Complaints Service is the part of the Law Society which helps you if you have a problem with your solicitor
What happens in reality is the CCS (which was the OSS) will misuse a Complainant's complaint files that are in their possession to conspire with the solicitors and the 'Noble' Ethics Committee to sack a paying client because he complained about the service he was receiving. They say this "helps you if you have a problem with your solicitor". May be the 'CCS' and this 'Noble' Ethics Committee should explain just how this "helps" the client!

Click Here to read what a Barrister had to say in hindsight, a District Judge and one of Thos Boyd Whyte's own Solicitors had to say before I was sacked. I believe it would have been reasonable to have expected this 'Noble' Ethics Committee to investigate or check the facts or even looked at whether or not that my Solicitors had acted correctly and within the rules, i.e. violation of the LS rules when collecting information from 'unopened files' that should only been 'revealed' in the normal progression of an investigation and if used for 'unrelated purposes' to the complaint. It would appear this 'Noble' Ethics Committee is nothing less than an extension of the Law Society's 'Protection Racket' that assists solicitor firms in getting rid of any client that dares to complain. Let me add here, regarding solicitors being allowd to 'request' information from complainants' files, that King Richard stated in a letter he wrote to me dated 4 November 2004 that; "There is no such provision in the Data Protection Acts" .

You have to remember I was advised by the 'Protection Society' (OSS) to send them an 'official complaint' that the 'Protection Society', my solicitors and this 'Noble' Ethics Committee would use the contents of to get rid of me as a paying client because I had dared to ask to see a Senior Partner to complain about my dissatisfactions. Click Here 'does the Client Care Agreement have any validity'.

Gordon Luckhurst would eventually write to the 'Protection Society' admitting he had not handled my complaint correctly but the 'Protection Society' and Zahida Manzoor (LSO) refused to investigate Gordon Luckhurst's refusal to see me, which by the Law Society's rule book and the fact he had refused three times to see me he was guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' three times. It is very clear that this 'Noble Ethics Committee' who played an important part in my sacking is clearly an intricate part of the Law Society's 'Protection Racket'.