Misleading the Court? As a Witness? As a Representative?
Official, Open and Public Complaint to the ALCD
Update 16th July 2008 - Fifth Head of Complaint - Moved Letters
A costs draughtsman to avoid "at all costs" - Nigel Long, The Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare
Mr Long is a Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen and was at one time a practicing solicitor (does anyone know... was he struck off?).
According to the ALCD website - here
Fellows
4. No person shall be eligible for
admission to the Association as a Fellow unless he satisfies the Council that he
is of good character, experience and suitability and is a fit and
proper person to be a Fellow of the Association and meets all the following
requirements and any other requirements stipulated from time to time by the
Council:
Nigel Long does "work" for dishonest firms such as FDC Law and (no doubt) many others in the south west. He is not to be trusted. Use him at your peril. Do not give him your custom. If you meet him as an opponent, be very wary of him ... this is MY opinion but ... you have been warned!
I believe him to be a liar and a completely unscrupulous, self-serving, cheat - but you don't have to believe ME
On 7th March 2008 Mr. Long appeared as a witness at FDC Law's request. The District Judge - District Judge R James, normally of Aldershot and Farnham County Court - was no "mere" district judge. He was sitting as Regional Costs Judge (I think there are only 6 in the country?) - a veritable "Big Cheese" in the costs business - unlikely to make throw-away remarks? In any case, he reserved his judgment and thought about it very carefully for six weeks. Here's what he said in his draft judgment dated 15th April 2008 ...
"I am afraid that I did not form such a good impression of Mr. Long. In evidence concerning the crucial issues as to whether there had been a breach of the indemnity principle he told the Court that District Judge Brookes was told that there was no client care letter to establish the charging rate in the bill. When challenged and it being pointed out that there was a transcript of the hearing before District Judge Brookes in the bundle, he admitted that contrary to the statement that he had just made he had read the transcript only that morning and there was no reference to such a disclosure. That was an astonishing admission and it is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that Mr. Long had deliberately tried to mislead the Court. In his defence he made the lame excuse that the transcript may not be accurate, that the tape machine may have been turned off at the crucial time. I am afraid that his evidence is unquestionably tainted and I am bound to regard it with considerable scepticism."
So, ALCD, this is my FIRST head of complaint to you.
In my opinion Nigel Long is a liar and unfit to be a Fellow of your organisation. It would seem that a Regional Costs Judge shares my opinion. What do you intend to DO about it? To date I have emailed you FOUR times but you have not responded.
Interesting link? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article3456104.ece
In December 2004 Nigel Douglas Long deceived District Judge Brookes as follows:-
He KNEW that FDC Law had completely abandoned the Client Care code (Rule 15) and that there was no contentious business agreement between FDC Law and their Client. He kept silent about these FACTS.
He KNEW that there had been no agreed hourly rate and no agreed rate increase and yet he presented his "bill" EXACTLY as if this had all been properly agreed and documented.
He somehow persuaded Patricia Wayman the (then) senior partner of FDC Liar to sign a certificate of accuracy and a declaration regarding the Indemnity Principle on the bill he had prepared (a work of total fiction). On 7th March 2008, Patricia Wayman admitted in Court that she was guilty of "muddle headed thinking" and that she should not have signed the bill in the circumstances.
He KNEW, only 3 days before the hearing, that the ONLY charging rate agreed between FDC Law and their Client was £80/hr and yet he kept silent about this vital FACT and insisted that the hourly rates of £155 and £165 claimed in his bill were "reasonable".
He had sight of a letter FDC Law had written to their Client more than a YEAR earlier which restricted the Client's liability to the Firm to just over £6,000 and yet he kept this secret from the judge and defended his bill for over £16,000 for the SAME work.
When the Judge asked about the HUGE discrepancy between the "bill" and the Forms H (family case - up to 530% uplift from estimates claimed) Nigel Long LIED. As we discovered earlier this year, the MAIN reason for the difference was the DOUBLING of the charging rate and NOT the "reason" Long gave. The Forms H were all based on £80/hr, the bill was based on £155 and £165/hr.
Not ONLY did Long lie about the "reason" for the increase... but it seems he almost certainly lied about the amount of the "estimate" too. On 7th March THIS year, D J James (the Regional Costs Judge) ALSO found, in Paragraph 73 of the same draft judgment, that Patricia Wayman had misled District Judge Rutherford back in 2003. Near the end of that hearing in December 2004, AFTER D J Brookes had decided to give FDC Liar 150% of their estimates, Nigel Long claimed the estimate was over £6,000. We now see that the so-called estimate included OTHER costs - the REAL amount was only just over £4,000. It seems Mr. Long tricked the judge into awarding well over 200%. Nasty little liar? Or was Long himself deceived?
I have transcripts and documents to prove ALL of the above...
So, what do the ALCD think? Is this
acceptable in a family case? Do creeps (I mean)
Members like this bring YOU into
disrepute? I suppose we can at least be grateful that this particular
Lying-Long is NOT now practicing family law - should he be allowed to
remain a "Fellow"?
Another of Long's "bills" included double charging by
Elaine Pitman. Best seen on the Pitman
Page - ILEX take note - the OSS/CCS are well known for covering up solicitor
misconduct (I doubt another £275,000
fine this month will make any difference) - but what about the "lesser
regulators"? Once again,
I have documents to prove everything I say. Pitman and Long KNOW this ...
and remember these are so-called "legal professionals" ... it seems there is
bugger all they can do (defamation? when what's said is both true and in the
public interest? Well, they haven't so much as complained to date), but isn't it embarrassing for their so-called
professional bodies? Can they sit back idle? Doesn't it reflect on
YOU when scum Er! Members? break the rules of decency?
Nigel Long breached Client confidentiality for his own gain. It bothers me less than it does FDC Law, but surely it's still misconduct? At the time I genuinely believed he (Long) thought that FDC Liar had deceived HIM - and duly removed his name from the Leigh Page (most hits) because he found it "embarrassing". Well, now it WILL be embarrassing for him ... it seems the Lying-Long was after another £1155.00 plus VAT and (get this) a "witness fee" (for LYING to the Regional Costs Judge) of £810.00 + VAT - I wonder if D J James will think these "costs" were "reasonably incurred"? Did someone shout "Wasted Costs Order"? .... they WILL be. (PS do YOU question WHY FDC Law NEEDED a witness to mislead the Court?)
New information obtained in Court on 25/06/2008
It would appear that Nigel Long also assisted FDC Law in preparing costs statements and a final schedule in connection with my Application, at which hearing District Judge James, the Regional Costs Judge, found Mr. Long trying to mislead the court over his involvement in the case - i.e. at the hearing before District Judge Brookes.
This time around FDC Law HAD actually provided their client with a Rule 15 letter (you know, the Client Care and Costs Information Code 1999 - the thing incompetent solicitors like Patricia Wayman feel they can ignore completely). FDC Liar's cost draughtsman really had NO EXCUSES this time for not drafting his bills using the correct hourly rate - and given the HISTORY he had no excuses for not LOOKING for a contract. Ah, but "no excuses" does NOT stop the likes of Nigel Long from trying to cheat!!!!
The hourly rates claimed this time were £173 / hr for Elaine Pitman and £190 / hr for Ben Whelan.
In FACT the contract restricted this to just £145 / hr. Once again we have a Costs Draughtsman conspiring to hide solicitor incompetence, to deceive the Court and claim far more than the solicitors were entitled to. Think about it - add in the VAT and that's a difference of £52.88 PER HOUR. I wonder if he was paid a back-hander for this dishonesty?
So, Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen (ALCD) what yer gonna do about this "Fellow"? Fit to be a Member? Or is there a general wavier in your rules about lies and deceit?
The solicitor in question, Patricia Wyman, Senior Partner, was also in breach of
Direct Court orders
The FPR, the CPR, and the CPD
The Solicitor's Practice Rules
The Law Society Rules
Section 42 of the Access to Justice Act 1999
Her duty to the Court under CPR1 - (on numerous occasions)
Professional Misconduct
Professional Negligence
Misleading District Judge Rutherford on 29/07/03
Misleading H H J Barclay on 08/09/2004
Misleading D j Brookes in December 2004
Misleading H H J Cardinal on 01/08/2005
Aided and abetted by Nigel Long (ALCD) and Elaine Pitman (ILEX)? Or were they both totally "innocent" - judge for yourself?
|
Minor update ... .... he looks like this ... ->
Seems he is (or was) a bit of a "cheese" in Somerset Golf.
Weston-Super-Mare Golf Club and all that, don't you know! |
 |
Also...
I did finally get a response from ALCD here. It seems CCing many did the trick. Got one from ILEX too - here |
See here also
Update 23rd July 2008 It seems the ALCD don't like web pages. So I sent them 6 e-mails instead 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - nothing new, but possibly easier for them? Easier for YOU here
Have added a fifth head of complaint above - new information was gleaned in Court on 25th June 2008 of MORE cheating. This pages becoming too long so I'm moving all the correspondence to this page.
Update 25th June 2008 - I have to say that so far the ALCD have been as good as gold. They DID email me on 4th June and said the next council meeting would be on Friday 13th June (unlucky for some, Nigel?) and they would discuss the matter then. When I got back from Hols there was letter waiting - click here. It seems they did as they said! :-) I am impressed! Truly!
My somewhat jaundiced view of the so-called "regulators" stems from my dealings with the OSS/CCS and the Legal Services Ombudsman (OLSO) Both of whom were (are? the OSS/CCS has a new name), quite frankly, a cover-up organisation for solicitor crime. That is of course MY opinion but I can find MANY others who would agree with it (so could Paul) ... and the FACT is, that in more than 6 months "investigation" the Law Society somehow failed to notice that FDC Law didn't even have a contract with their Client - here). So, are ALCD a better organisation? Is it simply the public nature of this complaint? Is it because I have quoted a Regional Costs Judge? Time will no doubt tell, but I certainly intend to explore using the same technique in a similar complaint to ILEX and a new complaint to the SRA - who knows, I may even try the Bar Council about Curwen and Duthie?
Interestingly ... I tried this this evening ... if you go to www.google.co.uk and type "costs draughtsman" the very TOP hit is my "Leigh" page on LegalBullies. The 7th hit is THIS page ... but on the mirror here. Pretty quick really, and surely an embarrassment for the ALCD... not to mention Nigel and FDC Law. Does this help focus the complaint I wonder? We will see :-)
Ok, I have MORE news... Under the Fourth Head I said "I wonder if D J James will think these "costs" were "reasonably incurred"?" - Well, in respect of Mr. Long's "bills" (for misleading the Court?), FDC Law tried to claim three items totaling £3,013.88. A LOT of money?
All three items were struck out. Actually, of course, these were claimed as Disbursements... meaning (unless they lied again) FDC Law will have had to pay Nigel Long this money - so the liar still gets paid :-( ... but WHO picks up the tab? Well, given FDC Law's MAJOR Inadequate Professional Service - despite the Law Society failings - I'm POSITIVE it won't be their Client - - - so, I'm guessing either FDC Law pay this or try asking Nigel to split their losses or something? Both are greedy - I hope they enjoy the squabble.
All letters to and from the ALCD are now here
Whatever you do I suggest you avoid FDC Law and Nigel Long like the plague.
ANY bill from this firm and ANY bill produced by Nigel Long should be subjected to the closest scrutiny - check out the Elaine Pitman Page. and the Leigh Vs. Michelin Tyre Page