PROFESSIONAL ROGUES

This web site was set up to expose crooked solicitors and barristers, when the governing bodies, ie, Law Society, Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, Office of Supervisory Solicitors, Bar Council, and the Legal Ombudsman, fail to reprimand, (strike off), the guilty party, and make amends to any client who has suffered loss as a direct result of their negligence, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, and failure to act in the clients interest.

If you have suffered in any way as a direct result of solicitor/barrister action, or lack of it, then we would be only to pleased to name the solicitor or barrister, along with the details of their actions, whether it be failure to act in clients interest, downright incompetence, misconduct, lies, deceit, fraud, corruption, perjury etc. Believe me, as author of this site, I've witnessed the bloody lot, The only reply from the governing bodies was:-

Fifty years ago people looked up to a solicitor/barrister as a professional, someone they could trust to correct wrongdoing, and injustice. Now the public see them for what they really are, nothing more than PROFESSIONAL ROGUES, hell bent on screwing private fee paying clients, Legal Insurance Companies, and the taxpayer, via the Legal Aid Board, for as much as possible in return for as little as possible. The actions of present day solicitors/barristers does not justify calling it a legal profession, and no solicitor has the right to class himself/herself as a professional judging by today's standards. Consider the following facts:-

Solicitors/barristers are safe in the knowledge that at the end of the day, win or lose their clients case, they will be paid in FULL, regardless of how poor a service they have given. No other organisation or trade profession would be allowed the right to claim full costs for making a hash of a job. The legal profession, (that's a joke for starters, as I, and no doubt many others have yet to see a professional service), is policed by non other than solicitors/barristers. It is evident therefore that those lawyers acting for the governing bodies will do no more than "cover up" any misconduct or fraud. Again no other organisation would be allowed to operate in this way.

Standards began to deteriorate in the early 80's which resulted in the SCB, (Solicitors Complaints Bureau, or the Solicitors Coverup Bureau as I preferred to call it). It was set up to investigate negligence and misconduct. However that organisation, later renamed to the OSS, (Office of Supervisory Solicitors, or the Oganised Scam Society as I would call it), did nothing to correct the deteriorating standards. They make feeble excuses to cover up wrongdoing, and get solicitor off the hook, thereby avoiding compensation payment. In the meantime standards continued to decline, and can now only be described as "absolutely bloody appalling". This scum organisation, whose staff are nothing more than "wasters", has got to be the most corrupt not only in the UK, but the whole world, has again changed it's name to the CCS, (Consumer Complaints Service). No that can't be right because they NEVER investigate complaints, it must stand for the Corruption and Coverup Society.

It is a complete and utter waste of time contacting the Legal Ombudsman, as once again staff at the Ombudsman's office like Simon Entwistle, are selected by non other than the Law Society. They are swamped with client complaints, and consequently cannot cope with the influx. It is far easier for them to dismiss a claim, and hope you won't bother them anymore, than to spend time investigating your case. The Citizens Advice Bureau do nothing other than to tell you to find another solicitor, but nine times out of ten it is to late as damage has been done, and another solicitor will only be as bad, if not worse. Ironically one of the solicitors I instructed was actually recommended by the CAB. That solicitor made a complete and utter hash of our litigation claim. I informed the CAB office in question, but they would in no way assist me, because the solicitor in question was on their books as the one they recommend to clients.

If you have hard evidence of solicitor incompetance/serious fraud, and think you will be succeed in suing the solicitor in court for damages, forget it, as you will NOT succeed, and will be even more financially "out of pocket". I tried this procedure, but was naive and did not realise that judges within the English judiciary are just as crooked and corrupt as what solicitors are, after all they started out as solicitors before becoming a judge. In my case the judge had overwhelming evidence of incompetence and failure by the firm of solicitors, resulting in financial loss and enormous stress to my wife and I. However he "twisted and distorted" that evidence so as to blame some party, namely the Legal Insurers when that was not the case, and confirmed by the Financial Ombudsman, who told me to refer the case back to court, however I could not continue with what was obviously a corrupt system of justice.

In another situation one of the solicitors I instructed refused to take our case into court on the day of the hearing, (this was because he had received a back hander from some other party to keep the case "out of court" so as not expose the fraud committed ie, falsifying plans etc). In fact the solicitor and barrister had previously removed all those falsified plans from our "case file" and I suspected at the time that something funny was going on. I therefore applied to the court to "set aside" the order forced upon us on the basis that solicitor/barrister were not working in our interest, but the interest of the defendants and other parties, and had in fact removed most of the hard evidence from our file, hence I was now submitting that evidence to the judge. The first thing I noticed was that this what not the same judge who sat on the previous hearing, and he was not wearing his wig as most CJ's do when attending a court case. When I told him about falsified plans which were not seen at the previous hearing, he shook his head and said that he did not want to see, and was not interested in the evidence I had submitted. He then referred me as being a vexatious litigant. Why didn't he just say " I know this firm of solicitors, are friendly with the staff, and drink from the same water hole, so tough luck mate"

I believe the solicitor/barrister had planned to have a certain judge on the hearing day, and when that judge was not available they realised the case may not go as they wanted it to, and is why they became extremely agitated on the day, refusing to take case into court. The judge who sat at the hearing the second time when I applied for "set aside" was the judge they expected at the first hearing, which explains why judge refused to look at any evidence, and dismissed our claim for "set aside". Stinks rotten to the core doesn't it? Since the hearing, court staff have persistently lied to me saying that the same judge sat on both the hearings.

After the Lord Archer trial in the summer of 2001, Judge Potts said it was the worst case of perjury, libel, lies and deceit that he had ever come across. This just goes to show how out of touch with reality judges really are. I, and now doubt many others have witnessed far more severe cases perpetrated by solicitors and barristers, however those cases never get to court. WHY, because those guilty of the crimes have people in high places who "cover up" their actions. The Law Society and it's members top the list when it comes to "cover ups", simply because they do NOTHING to assist the public in a negligence claim. Judges also "cover up" serious solictor/barrister misconduct, as previously shown above.

It is a well known fact that solicitors, and barristers agents use character slurs against the complainer on unsupported evidence in order to mitigate punishment to their client. When a person continues to fight for justice, he or she is classed as a vexatious litigant. The Law Society and it's members have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to call it a Legal Profession when such an utterly disgusting state of affairs is perpetrated by it's members. It is ironic to think that there are numerous TV documentaries exposing dodgy builders/plumbers etc, and yet if the truth is known, MORE people suffer stress, hardship, and financial loss at the hands of crooked solicitors and barristers than any other trade or profession. TV documentary makers should get their priorities right, if they want to attract viewers. Lawyers protect one another, so if you use a solicitor to pursue negligence on another solicitor/barrister, they to will act for the lawyer instead of the claimant. The so called legal profession policies itself, and as long as this disgusting practice continues, the worse the situation will get. Government intervention is LONG OVERDUE.

"There have been great changes in the law of negligence, the functioning of the legal profession, the administration of justice and public perceptions since the decision of Rondel v Worsley (1969), so it was time to reexamine the whole issue of the advocate's immunity from suit. In general the law provided a remedy in damages for a person who had suffered injury as a result of professional negligence and it followed that any exception which denied such a remedy required a sound justification". COMMENT: Yes there have been great changes in the law of negligence, as solicitors and barristers now enjoy immunity from suit more than ever before. In general the law DOES NOT provide a remedy in damages for a person who has suffered injury/loss from solicitor negligence, and there are many, many people out there who will verify this. Another classic example of senior judges passing rules/laws which are never actioned, because they themselves are out of touch with the real world.

A client goes to a solicitor, and with the hard evidence available to the solicitor it is unquestionable that the case would succeed in court. The other party's solicitors know this full well. They strike up a deal with the solicitor. They ask him/her what their total legal costs to are date, plus what would the costs be if that solicitor proceeded to a court hearing. They then offer the solicitor that total amount if he/she can pursued their client to accept a fixed amount which would be substantially lower than the damages awarded if the case had gone before a judge. The solicitor then informs his/her client with the offer put forward by the other party's solicitor and states that if case were to go before a judge they would probably come out with less, when in all sense and reason the judge would undoubtedly award more damages. Therefore the solicitor's client trusts what they tell them, and settles for the amount put forward. The other parties insurers gain because they do not have to shell out as much if the case had gone to court. The clients solicitor gains even more than the insurer because he/she has been paid for work which they have not done, namely acting for the client right up to, and including a court hearing. In a nutshell the solicitor gets paid in full regardless of whether the case proceeds to court or not. The only loser is the client with the personal injury, who comes out with substantially lower compensation than if he had proceeded to a court hearing, where a judge would have awarded more damages. This scam is rife throughout all personal injury solicitors across the whole of the UK. Yes solicitors and barristers, once regarded as the "creme de la creme", are now seen for what they really are, the lowest of the low. This legal scum is now in the same category as drug dealers, paedophiles, and other criminals who have turned this once great country, into a cesspool of fraud and corruption.


	PROFESSIONAL ROGUES This web site was set up to expose crooked solicitors and barristers, when the governing bodies, ie, Law Society, Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, Office of Supervisory Solicitors, Bar Council, and the Legal Ombudsman, fail to reprimand, (strike off), the guilty party, and make amends to any client who has suffered loss as a direct result of their negligence, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, and failure to act in the clients interest. If you have suffered in any way as a direct result of solicitor/barrister action, or lack of it, then we would be only to pleased to name the solicitor or barrister, along with the details of their actions, whether it be failure to act in clients interest, downright incompetence, misconduct, lies, deceit, fraud, corruption, perjury etc. Believe me, as author of this site, I've witnessed the bloody lot, The only reply from the governing bodies was:- A) They either flatly deny the solicitor/barrister is at fault, even when shown evidence, or:- B) Claim that they are not responsible for criminal actions, incompetence, and failure to act. Fifty years ago people looked up to a solicitor/barrister as a professional, someone they could trust to correct wrongdoing, and injustice. Now the public see them for what they really are, nothing more than PROFESSIONAL ROGUES, hell bent on screwing private fee paying clients, Legal Insurance Companies, and the taxpayer, via the Legal Aid Board, for as much as possible in return for as little as possible. The actions of present day solicitors/barristers does not justify calling it a legal profession, and no solicitor has the right to class himself/herself as a professional judging by today's standards. Consider the following facts:- Solicitors/barristers are safe in the knowledge that at the end of the day, win or lose their clients case, they will be paid in FULL, regardless of how poor a service they have given. No other organisation or trade profession would be allowed the right to claim full costs for making a hash of a job. The legal profession, (that's a joke for starters, as I, and no doubt many others have yet to see a professional service), is policed by non other than solicitors/barristers. It is evident therefore that those lawyers acting for the governing bodies will do no more than "cover up" any misconduct or fraud. Again no other organisation would be allowed to operate in this way. Standards began to deteriorate in the early 80's which resulted in the SCB, (Solicitors Complaints Bureau, or the Solicitors Coverup Bureau as I preferred to call it). It was set up to investigate negligence and misconduct. However that organisation, later renamed to the OSS, (Office of Supervisory Solicitors, or the Oganised Scam Society as I would call it), did nothing to correct the deteriorating standards. They make feeble excuses to cover up wrongdoing, and get solicitor off the hook, thereby avoiding compensation payment. In the meantime standards continued to decline, and can now only be described as "absolutely bloody appalling". This scum organisation, whose staff are nothing more than "wasters", has got to be the most corrupt not only in the UK, but the whole world, has again changed it's name to the CCS, (Consumer Complaints Service). No that can't be right because they NEVER investigate complaints, it must stand for the Corruption and Coverup Society. It is a complete and utter waste of time contacting the Legal Ombudsman, as once again staff at the Ombudsman's office like Simon Entwistle, are selected by non other than the Law Society. They are swamped with client complaints, and consequently cannot cope with the influx. It is far easier for them to dismiss a claim, and hope you won't bother them anymore, than to spend time investigating your case. The Citizens Advice Bureau do nothing other than to tell you to find another solicitor, but nine times out of ten it is to late as damage has been done, and another solicitor will only be as bad, if not worse. Ironically one of the solicitors I instructed was actually recommended by the CAB. That solicitor made a complete and utter hash of our litigation claim. I informed the CAB office in question, but they would in no way assist me, because the solicitor in question was on their books as the one they recommend to clients. If you have hard evidence of solicitor incompetance/serious fraud, and think you will be succeed in suing the solicitor in court for damages, forget it, as you will NOT succeed, and will be even more financially "out of pocket". I tried this procedure, but was naive and did not realise that judges within the English judiciary are just as crooked and corrupt as what solicitors are, after all they started out as solicitors before becoming a judge. In my case the judge had overwhelming evidence of incompetence and failure by the firm of solicitors, resulting in financial loss and enormous stress to my wife and I. However he "twisted and distorted" that evidence so as to blame some party, namely the Legal Insurers when that was not the case, and confirmed by the Financial Ombudsman, who told me to refer the case back to court, however I could not continue with what was obviously a corrupt system of justice. In another situation one of the solicitors I instructed refused to take our case into court on the day of the hearing, (this was because he had received a back hander from some other party to keep the case "out of court" so as not expose the fraud committed ie, falsifying plans etc). In fact the solicitor and barrister had previously removed all those falsified plans from our "case file" and I suspected at the time that something funny was going on. I therefore applied to the court to "set aside" the order forced upon us on the basis that solicitor/barrister were not working in our interest, but the interest of the defendants and other parties, and had in fact removed most of the hard evidence from our file, hence I was now submitting that evidence to the judge. The first thing I noticed was that this what not the same judge who sat on the previous hearing, and he was not wearing his wig as most CJ's do when attending a court case. When I told him about falsified plans which were not seen at the previous hearing, he shook his head and said that he did not want to see, and was not interested in the evidence I had submitted. He then referred me as being a vexatious litigant. Why didn't he just say " I know this firm of solicitors, are friendly with the staff, and drink from the same water hole, so tough luck mate" I believe the solicitor/barrister had planned to have a certain judge on the hearing day, and when that judge was not available they realised the case may not go as they wanted it to, and is why they became extremely agitated on the day, refusing to take case into court. The judge who sat at the hearing the second time when I applied for "set aside" was the judge they expected at the first hearing, which explains why judge refused to look at any evidence, and dismissed our claim for "set aside". Stinks rotten to the core doesn't it? Since the hearing, court staff have persistently lied to me saying that the same judge sat on both the hearings. After the Lord Archer trial in the summer of 2001, Judge Potts said it was the worst case of perjury, libel, lies and deceit that he had ever come across. This just goes to show how out of touch with reality judges really are. I, and now doubt many others have witnessed far more severe cases perpetrated by solicitors and barristers, however those cases never get to court. WHY, because those guilty of the crimes have people in high places who "cover up" their actions. The Law Society and it's members top the list when it comes to "cover ups", simply because they do NOTHING to assist the public in a negligence claim. Judges also "cover up" serious solictor/barrister misconduct, as previously shown above. It is a well known fact that solicitors, and barristers agents use character slurs against the complainer on unsupported evidence in order to mitigate punishment to their client. When a person continues to fight for justice, he or she is classed as a vexatious litigant. The Law Society and it's members have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to call it a Legal Profession when such an utterly disgusting state of affairs is perpetrated by it's members. It is ironic to think that there are numerous TV documentaries exposing dodgy builders/plumbers etc, and yet if the truth is known, MORE people suffer stress, hardship, and financial loss at the hands of crooked solicitors and barristers than any other trade or profession. TV documentary makers should get their priorities right, if they want to attract viewers. Lawyers protect one another, so if you use a solicitor to pursue negligence on another solicitor/barrister, they to will act for the lawyer instead of the claimant. The so called legal profession policies itself, and as long as this disgusting practice continues, the worse the situation will get. Government intervention is LONG OVERDUE. Consider this statement made by Lord Hoffmann in 1999:- "There have been great changes in the law of negligence, the functioning of the legal profession, the administration of justice and public perceptions since the decision of Rondel v Worsley (1969), so it was time to reexamine the whole issue of the advocate's immunity from suit. In general the law provided a remedy in damages for a person who had suffered injury as a result of professional negligence and it followed that any exception which denied such a remedy required a sound justification". COMMENT: Yes there have been great changes in the law of negligence, as solicitors and barristers now enjoy immunity from suit more than ever before. In general the law DOES NOT provide a remedy in damages for a person who has suffered injury/loss from solicitor negligence, and there are many, many people out there who will verify this. Another classic example of senior judges passing rules/laws which are never actioned, because they themselves are out of touch with the real world. FRAUD: It seems that if allegations of fraud are not properly examined, there should be a retrial. (Law Report Court of Appeal August 7th 1998) COMMENT Yet another statement which is wholly incorrect. What's the point when judge's refuse point blank to look at any evidence of solicitor fraud. In a nutshell the whole legal profession and judiciary stinks rotten to the core with corruption and cover ups, from the very bottom to the very top. Ever wondered why solicitors clamber over themselves for Personal Injury claims? Well it's because it is yet another appalling solicitor scam, and works like this:- A client goes to a solicitor, and with the hard evidence available to the solicitor it is unquestionable that the case would succeed in court. The other party's solicitors know this full well. They strike up a deal with the solicitor. They ask him/her what their total legal costs to are date, plus what would the costs be if that solicitor proceeded to a court hearing. They then offer the solicitor that total amount if he/she can pursued their client to accept a fixed amount which would be substantially lower than the damages awarded if the case had gone before a judge. The solicitor then informs his/her client with the offer put forward by the other party's solicitor and states that if case were to go before a judge they would probably come out with less, when in all sense and reason the judge would undoubtedly award more damages. Therefore the solicitor's client trusts what they tell them, and settles for the amount put forward. The other parties insurers gain because they do not have to shell out as much if the case had gone to court. The clients solicitor gains even more than the insurer because he/she has been paid for work which they have not done, namely acting for the client right up to, and including a court hearing. In a nutshell the solicitor gets paid in full regardless of whether the case proceeds to court or not. The only loser is the client with the personal injury, who comes out with substantially lower compensation than if he had proceeded to a court hearing, where a judge would have awarded more damages. This scam is rife throughout all personal injury solicitors across the whole of the UK. Yes solicitors and barristers, once regarded as the "creme de la creme", are now seen for what they really are, the lowest of the low. This legal scum is now in the same category as drug dealers, paedophiles, and other criminals who have turned this once great country, into a cesspool of fraud and corruption. GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDE BRIDGETT PRENTICE, AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES NOW, OR ARE YOU GOING TO DO SWEET FA JUST LIKE ALL THOSE BEFORE YOU? Future web sites are planned exposing corrupt Councils, and Insurance companies that fail to compensate victims. profrogues@yahoo.co.uk LINKS www.ibtl.co.uk A web site which exposes corruption and fraud within the Scottish legal system. www.unjustis.co.uk A web site set up to expose falling standards within the so called legal profession. www.casiaweb.com A web site which campaigns for Government regulation of the so called legal profession, and an end to self regulation. www.solicitorsfromhell.com One man's grievance against the corrupt legal system, plus name & shame your corrupt solicitor here. www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk A brilliant web site where you can list, (name and shame), your crooked solicitor www.wanksolicitors.bravehost.com Yet another naming & shaming web site. If the Law Society do nothing, then somebody has to. www.nightmaresolicitors.com Worst of the worst. www.crookedlawyers.com Seems crooked solicitors abound just about everywhere. www.legalbullies.co.uk Yet another who is disgusted at failure by the Law Society.