Lawyer threatens legal action against victim of Horizon scandal

l-r Davinder Misra, Janet Skinner, Nick Gould (circled), Tracy Felstead, Paul Marshall, Flora Page and Seema Misra in 2022

A victim of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, Seema Misra, has been threatened with legal action over a £60,000 bill by one of her former lawyers, Nick Gould.

Gould worked pro bono (for free) with the barristers Flora Page and Paul Marshall, on Seema’s successful appeal against her conviction for theft in April 2021. Gould also helped ensure Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead’s convictions got quashed at the same hearing. All three women were sent to prison after being prosecuted by the Post Office. Seema was pregnant. Tracy was just nineteen. After her release Janet was hospitalised with a serious physiological condition and told she would never walk again. Gould’s former clients have suffered considerably as a result of their criminal convictions. None have yet received full compensation.

In the immediate aftermath of the appeal hearing in 2021, Nick Gould indicated he would like to get paid for any further legal work he did for them. The three women, full of gratitude, agreed, and in May 2021 they signed retainers for the provision of “commercial legal services” provided by Nick Gould through his firm, Aria Grace Law. According to the terms and conditions attached to the retainer letter, Gould would charge his services at £300 per hour, and the maximum total amount of fees charged were agreed to be capped at £60,000 (inc VAT), payable on receipt of compensation. Seema’s compensation negotiations were handled separately, at first under a direct access agreement with Paul Marshall who then brought in the law firm Simons Muirhead Burton (SMB) to assist.

Mystic Invoice

On 24 January last year, Seema received an invoice from Aria Grace Law, demanding £58,800 for “advising… in connection with matters relating to the Post Office Scandal”. It is understood Janet Skinner and Tracy Felstead received similar demands. The final sum was the maximum £60,000 minus £1,200 Seema, Janet and Tracy had already paid Gould in 2023.

Nick Gould was apparently billing three women a total of £150,000 (ex VAT) for “commercial legal services” over three years. Given his fee rate of £300ph, that assumes a total of 500 hours for all three clients. There was no explanation as to what legal work Gould had actually done.

l-r Janet Skinner, Tracy Felstead, Seema Misra

Seema was not happy. She didn’t know what she was being billed for. Nonetheless, in February last year, she paid £20,000 towards the invoice. This money was sourced from her interim compensation. It’s thought Janet and Tracy have paid even more out of their interims. All three are vulnerable people. None were advised to seek legal advice before entering into the agreement with Nick Gould and Aria Grace, and none have been legally represented on this matter since SMB declined to get involved, apparently suggesting it would not be appropriate for them to do so.

On a couple of occasions last year Seema was chased by Mark French at Aria Grace Law for the outstanding amount. He suggested she put in place a payment plan. Seema refused. In April 2024, Gould wrote to Seema using an Aria Grace letterhead. He told her:

To be treated so shamefully by you is profoundly upsetting. I hope you and Davinder will reflect on this. I see your picture regularly across social media, but you and I now both know the true way you have choose to behave towards me, and in some ways, as you will appreciate, that means towards Rachel [Gould’s wife] as well. This is not a letter I would have chosen to write, but obviously I have no choice. I say this particularly as Mark suggested you pay in instalments or, as I suggested, you make a substantial payment now and the rest say in the next couple of months… I am sure you understand how strange your argument is; that you will not pay anything until you are fully compensated (whatever that might mean).

Nick Gould left Aria Grace earlier this year. Aria Grace apparently “assigned” Seema’s “debt” to Gould, who gave it to his new firm Impact Law to chase. On 7 April this year, Impact invoiced Seema for £38,800.

Nick Gould

Seema again asked for some kind of breakdown of what the bill was supposed to be for. Gould replied:

“I do not propose to spend pages writing a history of the work I carried out for you, Janet and Tracy. No one except the four of us, and maybe Davinder, Paul and Flora know what I did for each of you. You can try and persuade other people who you talk to, differently – we both understand the game of law/lawyers and fees – but, ultimately you know you know the truth/the facts. So we don’t really need to play word games or split hairs.”

Betrayal

Impact have now instructed a firm called Leverets to threaten legal action against Seema for non-payment of Gould’s outstanding invoice. In a letter dated 15 May 2025, Owen Vanstone-Hallam from Leverets wrote:

Our client demands, by 13 June 2025:

(i) payment of the Debt, totalling £38,800; and
(ii) interest of 8% per annum on the Debt, accruing daily from 21 February 2024 to 14 May 2025, totalling £3,810.
Total: £42,610

If you refuse to pay the Debt and interest within this timeframe, our client will pursue the Debt through the courts… Our client will also seek its costs of pursuing the debt against you.

Seema was in bits. She got in touch to alert me to the situation. It’s clear she still has a lot of time for Gould, given what he did for her, Janet and Tracy before their convictions were quashed. “We called Paul, Flora and Nick the Dream Team” she told me. Now she feels “betrayed”.

Seema has found a lawyer called Stephen Shotnes, who used to be a partner at SMB. Working in a personal capacity as a friend of Seema’s, he ran the rule over her retainer agreement with Gould. Shotnes has written to Leverets, pointing out a number of things about the way the agreement was drawn up, not least that:

Seema was plainly in a vulnerable position and to be regarded by any solicitor as a ‘vulnerable client’. In circumstances such as the above Mr Gould should have advised her in writing to seek independent legal advice about the ‘retainer’ including her other optionsSeema was understandably reluctant to question Mr Gould since he had been so supportive of the Post Office victims’ cause and had helped her pro-bono prior to April 2021. The onus is on a solicitor to make sure a vulnerable client is fully aware of all relevant matters and options… This is quite apart of the question of what legitimately chargeable work might have actually been carried out by Mr Gould. His and Aria Grace’s refusal to provide details, although requested by Seema some time ago, is noted.”

Shotnes also noted the 500 hours’ worth of legal services Gould claims to have provided for Seema, Janet and Tracy, telling Leverets:

“Mr Gould is put to strict proof of whether this occurred, when and the specific duration and nature of each item of such legal services… There is also the question of verifying to what extent Mr Gould sought and received instructions in respect of any specific actions.”

Seema and Gould in happier times

I approached Nick Gould, Aria Grace Law, Leverets and Impact Law for comment on the situation. In my email to Leverets, I asked what work Nick Gould was actually billing for, and suggested it was arguable Seema was being taken advantage of by Leverets and Nick Gould. I notified them of my intent to publish a piece on my blog. A barrister called Rupert Butler replied on Thursday, telling me my email was:

an implicit threat to cause Mr. Gould and/or Leverets and/or Mr. Vanstone-Hallam reputational harm if Mr. Gould instructs Leverets to pursue his claim for an unpaid debt through the civil courts. It is not entirely clear, but this unlawful interference with the due administration of justice appears to be you acting as an agent for Mrs. Misra and it trespasses perilously close to blackmail contrary to s.21 of the Theft Act 1968. In the last week we have already been obliged to warn off another party who has tried to do exactly the same thing as you in your email and there is now a pattern of concerted illegality.

I replied with an email explaining how journalism works, as it is a process with which Mr Butler seems unfamiliar.

This morning, Nick Gould said:

I understand you will publish unproven allegations against me today… It is important to note that I am unable to comment due to restrictions put on me by the regulator – the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Allegations against me were sent to the SRA by a person/people who have not been disclosed to me. I am unable to say anything about the various points you have put to me except to say, as you well know , Seema Misra was a client of mine for who I carried out work in connection with the Post Office scandal over several years.

I would want to say the facts set out in the allegations made against me are untrue but again, as they apparently could relate to more than one person, I am bound by client confidentiality. The full facts and the whole truth are important. I am extremely sorry that Mrs Misra and apparently perhaps others felt it necessary to make numerous unsubstantiated allegations against me. although I obviously don’t know as I haven’t seen your blog. I am responding based on what you sent me yesterday. The allegations made against me are incorrect.

I contacted the SRA. They will not confirm or deny whether they are investigating Nick Gould. Lindsay Healy, the founder of Aria Grace Law said:

“Aria Grace was founded on principles of open justice, transparency, and service to the public.  We would always do the right thing and that would, of course, extend to Seema.

“Nick Gould is no longer in any way affiliated with Aria Grace. He left our firm in January, and since that time, all work carried out by him is under his new entity, Impact Law, and he has had no connection with this firm whatsoever.  

“We are currently reviewing all our records and files in relation to Seema to ensure that no misleading representation was made to her by Mr Gould during her time as a client at this firm. Our commitment remains to protect the dignity and legal rights of every client we serve, particularly those who have already endured hardship.”

Impact Law have remained silent. I am grateful to Seema for allowing me the opportunity to make her situation public.

UPDATE: Aria Grace Law have issued a longer statement, which is published in the comments below and in this blog post.


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive occasional, irregular but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

30 responses to “Lawyer threatens legal action against victim of Horizon scandal”

  1. It is ok for a lawyer to send a client a bill for agreed work.

    It is also ok for a client to ask for a breakdown of costs.

    What is not ok is to use the media (and threats of tarnished reputations) to extract money (or to avoid paying).

    The UK legal system has clear procedure for recovering unpaid fees: if the client is not happy, they don’t pay. The lawyer sues. They go to court. The judge declares whether or not they need to pay.

    The judge declares. Not the journalist. And not the comments section.

    1. I guess we can all tell who you are friends with. No-one in their right mind can possibly take this lawyer’s side. All lawyers are parasites. Just because some may have helped once or twice doesn’t mean they are crusaders for justice. Any fees should have been sought from the post office.

  2. […] Grace Law have issued a longer statement, following a piece I published about Nick Gould on […]

  3. I am the CEO of a social enterprise and I have known Nick for over ten years. He has provided constant advice, seminars and workshops to help others on a pro bona basis. He has never asked for money or back dated any invoices.

    I believe that Nick worked for three years on the Post Office Scandal free of charge long before there was any settlement and whilst I do not know the details of this allegation, Nick would never disclose any confidential information, I am surprised to read these allegations. This is not the Nick I know.

    I have also worked with Aria Grace and they are a socially minded and work to the highest standards of integrity.

    I think this is a hard situation for Nick himself where he is now effectively gagged and can’t respond directly to this blog.

    I sincerely hope that this situation can be remedied effectively and quickly for all parties concerned. I am genuinely sorry to read this post.

    1. Alyson Weston avatar

      You best read the statement issued by Aria Grace, published by Nick Wallis on his blog, dropped into my inbox just now …

  4. When money is involved, there is a certain sort of person who gravitates towards it, to get a share. Shame that the likes of N.Wallace, F.Page, P.Marshall, R.Rolls, “Clint” and many, many others did the right thing. Others cannot tell good from bad.

  5. Chloe Alexander avatar
    Chloe Alexander

    What a sickening legal gravy train this scandal has become. Gould acting as hero then turning villain – with the same tactics that the original bullies used to put these poor people into their tragic situation in the first place. That is “we cannot provide any evidence for our claim but nevertheless you owe us £X,000”
    Quite extraordinary and once again, so unfair

  6. Disgraceful. They give parasites a bad name.
    I hope they don’t sue you now Nick, on behalf of parasites, for publishing my libeling of them.

    1. Calling them parasites wouldn’t be libel, as it’s simply your opinion 🙂

  7. Cherry Morgan avatar

    The conduct of the legal profession in this case is disgusting. I would not pay ANY bill especially a legal bill which was not itemised and proven that it was done. I also find it untenable that in a country where the minimum wage is far less than £20 an hour that anyone who is supposed to represent the ordinary man / woman in the street to obtain justice can demand £300 an hour

  8. KEVIN RATTIGAN avatar
    KEVIN RATTIGAN

    The Post Office scandal and the similar Australian Robodebt scandal can be largely summed up as “lawyers behaving badly”. If professionals cannot be trusted to behave ethically and their professional associations cannot be trusted to ensure that they do, individuals and the society will suffer more and more.

  9. Jamie Moreland avatar
    Jamie Moreland

    Is there no end to the misery these clearly vulnerable people must endure. It sounds very much to me that Mr Gould is disappointed he’s missed out on the legal cash cow that has resulted from this debacle and fall out. To invoice without providing a full accounting of work completed is tantamount to a word commencing with “f”. I certainly hope the legal associations don’t just circle the wagons around Mr Gould but demand full and complete documenting of work completed. That the matter has moved into legalistic letter writing and posturing tells me there is a lot of bluster and not much substance. I hope greed is not rewarded. Thank you for the update Nick.

  10. Elizabeth Moyse avatar
    Elizabeth Moyse

    Absolutely appalling. Solicitors nowadays note down meticulously the time they spend and on doing what. So why can Nick Gould not supply this information? Also shocking

    1. Yes, the fact that they think it is OK to not provide any kind of breakdown of the work done, and when asked saying “I do not propose to spend pages writing a history of the work…” is so outrageous. How about ONE SINGLE PAGE giving a breakdown, so Seema actually has something she can query. Simply saying “500 hours of work” is not good enough. Also, if it was agreed that she would pay when she had received final compensation, why is he now saying “Whatever that means”. Why are they asking for money they know she doesn’t have (which is exactly what the Post Office did)?

    2. Oh, I forgot to mention, them also accusing Nick of “blackmail”, when he simply warned them in advance of this blog entry. I assume that wasn’t something Nick was obliged to do, but was more of a journalistic courtesy. So long as Nick doesn’t say something that is factually inaccurate/untrue, and therefore libelous, what’s the problem?

  11. Bill Hattersley avatar
    Bill Hattersley

    The legal profession has already come out very badly overall from the Post Office Scandal, but I certainly don’t know what on earth has happened here.

    What I do know however, is that when challenged, members of the legal profession have a tendency to threaten legal action against whoever challenges them. It’s simply a different way of trying to bankrupt a litigant and so prevent them gaining justice.

  12. So, let’s keep this in perspective: the lawyer represented these clients for free for years to get their wrongful convictions overturned — a huge achievement given the scale of injustice they suffered. Then, once that was done, the clients agreed in writing to pay a capped fee for any further work, ensuring they’d continue to receive legal support.
    Now, years later, they’ve reported him to the regulator, effectively silencing him from responding to the allegations while they challenge the agreed payment arrangement.
    It’s important to remember that while what happened to the sub-postmasters was horrific, it’s ironic — and concerning — that some of the same injustices (lack of voice, lack of fairness) now seem to be playing out in reverse. Just saying….

  13. Orla Gilligan avatar

    Just looking for a bit of clarity…

    It’s standard practice for commercial lenders’ solicitors to refuse to provide an itemised breakdown of their mind-boggling costs when requesting a costs undertaking from the borrower’s conveyancer (whilst claiming that the borrower has already been informed of the costs and has agreed to pay them, which is usually nonsense), and to then to wave their willies and threaten to increase their costs to cover the cost of drafting an itemised breakdown.

    Needless to say, they hand the file to an unqualified ‘lawyer’ charge fees for carrying out due diligence but demand sight that the borrower’s solicitor actually carry out that due diligence, so the borrower effectively pays twice.

    I’d need to know what is motivating Seema, Janet and Tracey. I know they’ve been through hell and back, and I wouldn’t blame them if they absolutely hate ALL lawyers at this point, given the conduct of the solicitors who acted for the Post Office and Horizon, but that wouldn’t entitle them to avoid responsibility for paying agreed legal fees if the service paid for has been provided…

    – Is it the ladies’ position that they don’t owe Mr Gould/Aria Grace/Impact any more money under the terms of their 2021 signed retainer because they’ve already paid for all the work he carried out on their behalf under that retainer?

    – Or are they in agreement that they owe more but disagree on the amount and want an itemised bill before they pay more?

    – Or (more disappointingly) are they hoping to avoid paying for some of the work that Mr Gould carried out for them by arguing that if he didn’t keep an itemised written record of the work he carried out then he shouldn’t get paid for that work?

    I ask because whilst Mr Gould’s words may appear to demonstrate the same self-important arrogance frequently exhibited commercial lenders’ solicitors, I don’t think that Mr Gould is attempting to behave like that.

    I think that, instead, he may be genuinely hurt that his hard, dedicated work seems to have been belittled and undervalued by the ladies’ failure to pay his fees. The clients he carried out that work for have now put him to strict proof of whether he actually did that work (such as reasoning; researching; investigating; drafting; reviewing; attending meetings; holding telephone conversations; and exchanging emails), when he did each bit of it, and the specific duration and nature of each thing he did… all whilst complaining about him to the SRA.

    You’d struggle hard to show me any experienced solicitor who hasn’t put their heart and soul into a matter for clients that desperately needed their urgent help and constant attention, only to face a barrage of abuse and arguments when the time comes for their agreed fees to be paid. I had a matter where my client (needing an urgent commercial lease to satisfy a lender’s unqualified ‘lawyer’ who only got the gig by paying the broker a referral fee) telephoned me 144 times in six days at all hours of the day and night, and ‘popped in’ to speak to me eighteen times during office hours that week, and sent hundreds of urgent emails in that time. Can you imagine trying to record all of that work knowing you’ll be asked for an itemised breakdown of costs before they’ll pay you?

  14. ok, I’m a tad confused??…..so if the post office work was pro bono and a different firm did her compensation work (SMB) then what work is Mr Gould charging Seema for? She has every right to ask for an itemised invoice and if he’s legit then he should be able to provide this to her……if he has nothing to hide then give Seema the itemised invoice, what’s the problem?

  15. Lindsay Healy avatar

    Formal Statement from Aria Grace Law CIC – 6 June 2025

    We issue this statement in response to the article published by Mr Nick Wallis on 6 June 2025 concerning Mr Nick Gould and the legal services he claims to have provided to former clients of Aria Grace Law, including Ms Seema Misra.

    Aria Grace Law CIC was founded to uphold integrity, transparency, and the rights of those failed by institutions. The matters reported are deeply concerning and require a clear and unequivocal response.

    Mr Gould ceased all association with Aria Grace Law in January 2025. He was removed from professional duties following serious concerns regarding his conduct. Since that time, he has had no authority to act in our name, use our materials, or represent the firm in any capacity.

    Where our name has appeared in connection with these actions, whether in client correspondence, invoicing or documentation, we are actively investigating whether such use was compliant with our rules and ethical obligations. Our internal review is ongoing and focused on ensuring that any vulnerable individuals were afforded the protections to which they are entitled.

    To the extent that any client relied upon communications that appeared to originate from Aria Grace, we consider that highly regrettable and in direct conflict with the values on which this firm is built. We invite any affected party to contact us directly and we will respond with care and urgency.

    With respect to the mention of our former billing manager, Mr Mark French, we confirm that his involvement in communications with Ms Misra took place under the instruction of Mr Gould and without the authorisation of senior management. Following confirmation of those facts, Mr French’s relationship with Aria Grace has been terminated.

    For the avoidance of doubt, Aria Grace did not authorise, ratify, or benefit from the pursuit of any payment from Ms Misra or any other vulnerable individual under the arrangements described. Where this occurred, it was without our knowledge or consent and stands in direct and complete opposition to our standards and our purpose.

    Mr Gould does not speak for Aria Grace. Any attempt to pursue a former client while invoking this firm’s name is categorically rejected. It is unauthorised, improper, and must stop immediately.

    We remain committed to representing the vulnerable, to challenging injustice wherever it appears, and to holding ourselves to the same high standards we demand of others. That includes within our own profession.

    Aria Grace stands with the victims of the Post Office scandal. We honour their resilience and we condemn any conduct that seeks to exploit their trust or harm their recovery. We are taking steps to ensure that this matter is addressed fully, transparently and with compassion.

  16. Omg what kind of a country are we living in? Could the Great Post Office Scandal get any worse?

  17. Has Mr Gould decided that it wasn’t pro bono after all & is now seeking to reviver earlier costs??

  18. Gould obviously digging for gold!

  19. Orla Anne Gilligan avatar
    Orla Anne Gilligan

    Just looking for a bit of clarity…

    It’s standard practice for commercial lenders’ solicitors to refuse to provide an itemised breakdown of their mind-boggling costs when requesting a costs undertaking from the borrower’s conveyancer (whilst claiming that the borrower has already been informed of the costs and has agreed to pay them, which is usually nonsense), and to then to wave their willies and threaten to increase their costs to cover the cost of drafting an itemised breakdown.

    Needless to say, they hand the file to an unqualified ‘lawyer’ charge fees for carrying out due diligence but demand sight that the borrower’s solicitor actually carry out that due diligence, so the borrower effectively pays twice.

    I’d need to know what is motivating Seema, Janet and Tracey. I know they’ve been through hell and back, and I wouldn’t blame them if they absolutely hate ALL lawyers at this point, given the conduct of the solicitors who acted for the Post Office and Horizon, but that wouldn’t entitle them to avoid responsibility for paying agreed legal fees if the service paid for has been provided…

    – Is it the ladies’ position that they don’t owe Mr Gould/Aria Grace/Impact any more money under the terms of their 2021 signed retainer because they’ve already paid for all the work he carried out on their behalf under that retainer?

    – Or are they in agreement that they owe more but disagree on the amount and want an itemised bill before they pay more?

    – Or (more disappointingly) are they hoping to avoid paying for some of the work that Mr Gould carried out for them by arguing that if he didn’t keep an itemised written record of the work he carried out then he shouldn’t get paid for that work?

    I ask because whilst Mr Gould’s words may appear to demonstrate the same self-important arrogance frequently exhibited commercial lenders’ solicitors, I don’t think that Mr Gould is attempting to behave like that.

    I think that, instead, he may be genuinely hurt that his hard, dedicated work seems to have been belittled and undervalued by the ladies’ failure to pay his fees. The clients he carried out that work for have now put him to strict proof of whether he actually did that work (such as reasoning; researching; investigating; drafting; reviewing; attending meetings; holding telephone conversations; and exchanging emails), when he did each bit of it, and the specific duration and nature of each thing he did… all whilst complaining about him to the SRA.

    You’d struggle hard to show me any experienced solicitor who hasn’t put their heart and soul into a matter for clients that desperately needed their urgent help and constant attention, only to face a barrage of abuse and arguments when the time comes for their agreed fees to be paid. I had a matter where my client (needing an urgent commercial lease to satisfy a lender’s unqualified ‘lawyer’ who only got the gig by paying the broker a referral fee) telephoned me 144 times in six days at all hours of the day and night, and ‘popped in’ to speak to me eighteen times during office hours that week, and sent hundreds of urgent emails in that time. Can you imagine trying to record all of that work knowing you’ll be asked for an itemised breakdown of costs before they’ll pay you?

  20. Wow, just wow – thanks for writing about this Nick – it’s odd that lawyers could confuse legitimate, accurate journalism with “blackmail”.
    There are, of course, good and bad people in all walks of life and if the Horizon inquiry has taught us anything, the legal profession is, sadly, no different in this regard.
    Regardless of the “allegations” Nick Gould claims Seema Misra (and possibly others) have “incorrectly” made against him, surely there can be NO justification for presenting an invoice of almost £40k with no breakdown whatsoever of the work carried out? Who would be so foolish to pay such an invoice from a service provider without asking for a breakdown? (I wouldn’t, and I doubt few people would.)

  21. Sadly another example of the legal system based on winning, and not justice, charging innocent victims extraordinary fees rather than requiring the convicted to meet all costs. And when full compensation will be paid is anyone’s guess.

  22. A worrying development.

    Im no solictor but I might suggest that Seema and her colleagues make Subject Access Requests against both Aria Law and Impact in hope that it might help identify when and why her case notes were updated and give some transparency into the work performed.

  23. Wendy Rickman avatar

    Unbelievable that these poor women are still being impacted by the Post Office Scandal

    These Solicitors should be ashamed of themselves

    Well done Nick for putting your head above the parapet!

    Keep at them! – they should at least provide a full breakdown of the work they actually did – if they did!

  24. Thank you for publishing this. As part of their professional duties, on request solicitors must provide itemised bills for work they say they have carried out, which includes details of the work, how long it took and when they were instructed to carry out that work. The fact that this solicitor refuses to provide details of work carried out is a breach of his professional duties and it is vital to raise a formal complaint with the SRA. The solicitor should also have provided client care letters that informed the clients about the complaints procedure of his firm and allow the clients to make complaints. Solicitors should be able to provide documentary proof of instructions given and work done and provide itemised bills in a timely fashion. All 3 clients should dispute the bills, refuse to pay money and refer this solicitor to the regulator and make a Subject Access Request for copies of their files.

  25. Abysmal behaviour yet again and again by lawyers………been there done that myself…..billed for something you know not what and so worn down by appalling advice you give in………..Cannot believe charging £300 an hour and this man states he cannot be bothered to itemise what work is being billed for. This alone is ccontemptuous and yet seems to be the way self entitled lawyers believe is appropriate to behave with little regard to the distress caused to very vulnerable clients. Surely behaviour such as this is classed as bullying and harassment?

    There has been a lot wrong with our legal system for decades with no ombudsman setting out proper rules and regulations so those needing legal advice have access to understanding their rights. Seems lawyers have rights but not those who need to engage their services.

Leave a Reply to Pippa Crouch Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Alwen Lyons Andrew Winn Andy Dunks Andy Parsons Bates v Post Office Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice False Accounts Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Hugh Flemington Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Kevin Hollinrake Lee Castleton Lord Arbuthnot Nicki Arch Nick Read Noel Thomas Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Rebecca Thomson Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Richard Moorhead Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Swift Review Tracy Felstead UKGI

Categories