Society's Ethics Committee
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.
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.
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
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.
. . . . .
. . . .. .
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
you access http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/redressscheme.law
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!
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"
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'.
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