Hypocrisy Is Bennett Shaped

Saturday, July 24, 2010


Hypocrisy, Is U Shaped, Bennett! Think Of Your Own Past Before You Start Dragging The Kennedy Name Through The Mud!




3. During 1994 a Mrs H was introduced to the Respondent by the Grandparents’ Aid Federation, making initial contact with him at his then place of employment with Messrs Lee Davies & Co. She instructed him in about October/November 1994 in connection with a possible application to the European Court of Human Rights following child care/adoption proceedings relating to her granddaughter. (What Happened to The Child Bennett, Did You Just Abandon Her? Wasn't She Worth Fighting For?)

4. By a letter of 24 November 1994 from his home address, the Respondent purported to set out a retainer letter. Thereafter Mrs H wrote to the Respondent on 10 May 1995 and 24 March 1998. She received no response to those letters and made a complaint to the OSS. She wrote again to the Respondent on 2 July 1998 and 1 December 1998.(Well, Did You, Decide Off Your Own Back The Child Wasn't Worth Fighting For Bennett?)

5. By a letter dated 11 December 1998 following a conversation with the OSS on 5 November 1998, the Respondent wrote to Mrs H apologising for the delay in advising her but indicating that his advice was that she had no case.(4 years Bennett? Did You Take Your Retaining Fee And Then Abandon The Grandmother Too?)

6. Following further correspondence the matter was considered on 16 July 2001 by a sub-committee Client Relations. A finding of inadequate professional service was made dated 20 July 2001 and the Respondent was ordered to pay £500 compensation to Mrs H.

7. The Respondent appealed the finding which was upheld by an Appeal Committee on 30 August 2001.

8. On 8 October 2001, an Adjudicator directed that the matter be referred to the Tribunal should the Respondent fail to comply within 14 days.

9. At the date of the hearing the compensation awarded had not been paid by the Respondent and the finding had not therefore been complied with (Did You Ever Pay The Poor Woman Bennett?)

10. In 1997 whilst employed as an assistant solicitor by Lee Davies & Co, the Respondent undertook family work, in particular a number of Public Law Children Act cases involving Essex County Council.

11. In particular the Respondent acted for a Mr and Mrs F in relation to matters involving their children and the Essex County Council Social Services Department. Following the Respondent’s departure from the firm of Lee Davies and Co in September 1997, the clients transferred their business to another firm and when the question of Lee Davies & Co’s costs was raised it became apparent that the clients believed they had already paid for the work done on their behalf.

12. Mrs F produced three invoices dated 7 August, 2 and 11 September 1997 received from the Respondent totalling £426. Two of these bore the Respondent’s home address and specified that payment was to be made to the Respondent himself. The first account was accompanied by a compliment slip from Lee Davies & Co signed by the Respondent. All the work purportedly billed was undertaken during the period that the Respondent was employed by Lee Davies & Co.

13. Essex County Council believed they were dealing with the firm of Lee Davies & Co as solicitors for the clients Mr and Mrs F.

14. The Respondent raised an invoice through the firm for £30 including VAT in respect of an initial half-hour consultation which sum was paid to the firm. The balance invoiced was however paid to the Respondent personally.

15. This matter was investigated by a panel solicitor, Miss T. When the complaint was put to the Respondent he, by letter dated 7 March 1998 admitted to acting for Mr and Mrs F in a private capacity indicating that Mr F had approached him at home by phone. He also indicated that he was aware that he was not covered by professional indemnity insurance.

16. The matter was considered by the Compliance and Supervision Committee on 27 February 2001 when it was resolved that it be forwarded to the Tribunal. The Respondent appealed that decision and a Review Panel confirmed the decision on 8 November 2001

20. The Applicant had seen documents which would have enabled Lee Davies & Co to submit a bill had they wished as asserted by the Respondent but in the submission of the Applicant that was irrelevant. The complaint against the Respondent was that he was charging a client of the firm for his own personal gain.

21. The Applicant was aware that Lee Davies & Co had purported to withdraw their complaint against the Respondent but any arrangement made between the firm and the Respondent were irrelevant, a serious complaint having been made.

22. The Applicant said it was inappropriate for this matter to have taken so long to reach the Tribunal and apologised on behalf of the OSS.

Not Such An Honorable Man After All Bennett Are You! Nor Are You As Child Friendly As You Would Have Some Believe.




Posted by tony at 24.7.10


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/

Just shows bennett for what he really is, a total arseho le.
I hope that man rots in hell when his times comes. He deserves nothing better.

His time is coming, mark my words. He is going to pay, in Spades, for ALL his transgressions.

Peaceful1 wrote:Just shows bennett for what he really is, a total arseho le.
I hope that man rots in hell when his times comes. He deserves nothing better.

I thank heavens every day that 1. I don't live near him..and 2. I can't reach thro a pc screen...........

So the poor grandmother is left out in the cold.

And why am I not surprised at the billing 'irregularities'?

He reminds me of a boss I had. He represented mostly poorer and uneducated people in personal injury and civil rights cases. He never kept up with the cases and the people would call all day, trying to get updates on their cases. I'd take out their files and he would have not worked on it for weeks, if not months. He was, flatly, taking advantage of them - a lot of them were legitimately injured and would have just been better off taking the insurance company settlement and not having to give up a 1/3rd of it to him. In some cases the insurance company was putting up a fight or trying to take advantage, but not all. I was so sick of dealing with the clients by the end of my time there, because he was always telling me to tell them he was not there, or not taking their calls, that when he asked me what law I wanted to practice I said corporate stuff that didn't involve daily client interaction.

He looked at me and smirked and said, "Ohhh you don't want to help the little people, huh?"

And then I realized that he really saw himself as this crusader for these people, because he was doing "those people" a FAVOR by representing them at all (in his head).