3 weeks since Crown Court win - nothing from sol. or barr.

[dazed]

3 weeks ago on 11th September, after 18 months of hell and a two day Crown Court trial, a jury swiftly and unanimously found me not guilty in under 10 minutes on all 3 counts.

The trial nearly collapsed on day 1 because the solicitor hadn't forwarded something vital to the barrister, who was excellent in all respects and managed to smooth it over.

However, the case itself was "highly unusual", should never have been in court in the first place, the judge had strong criticism of both the cps/police evidence, as well as the wording of the original order which landed me in court in the first place. The barrister said she'd be writing a "legal note" for me, which of course, would have to be forwarded via my solicitor.

The solicitor was not in court on the day of the trial* and I've not received anything from the solicitor after 2 emails and a phone call, just a polite note from the director of the firm saying the solicitor was busy with other cases and would get back to me in due course. The legal note is critical for me to be able to move on to the next stage and I feel like I'm in legal limbo - I even tried calling the barrister's clerk to see if I could find out whether the note had yet been sent to the solicitor, but as the barrister isn't direct access they're pretty strict on keeping to the rules.

Given that my previous experience is that the barrister is normally very prompt to respond (usually same day, even if it often took the solicitor > 10 days to forward her reply), I am now fairly sure that the barrister's advice is sitting in the solicitor's inbox and not getting forwarded to me. In any case, I just find it a bit odd that there was no contact with the solicitor from the day before the trial to confirm it was on, and nothing at all since the trial.

The SRA can't advise me, so I'm thinking my next step is to ask the Legal Ombudsman for advice - but before I do that, am I having unreasonable expectations or unusual experiences?
What would YOU do in this situation? I don't really want to discuss the actual trial details if not needed, because there's a reporting restriction.

Note:
*I know it's not a requirement that the solicitor is in court as well as barrister for a trial, but given the potential 2-5 year prison sentence had it gone wrong, I thought this was odd.

[JK2054]

sorry solicitors rarely go to court. 2-5 year prison sentence isn't a reason for a solicitor to turn up.

Your solictor is, as the legal director said, just busy. You just need to wait, its quite simple. Not sure what you think your going to the legal ombudsman for i've got to be honest.

As a general guidance coming from someone who has a lot of experience with law firms, both internal and external, if an email is urgent by the recipient it will be dealt with the same day, otherwise it will sit in a queue that may be worked either once a month or once every 2 months.

You've also had confirmation that the solicitor is busy, you're not being ignored they're just busy. In regards to telephone calls, i'll be honest most firms tell employees to ignore these by principle of the fact that a) they might not always be billed and b) there is more important work to be doing (i.e your solictor will be working on someone elses file)

[islandgirl]

I would not agree with the above to be honest. The OP has a right to a reply after so long. Being busy is no excuse. I would keep asking politely. If the offices are nearby pop in. Be a squeaky wheel!

[dazed]

JK's reply is a stark reminder that it seems that the quality of legal representation has become so poor that many people have just given up all standards.

Solicitors aren't a "best effort" charitable service. They're supposedly skilled, regulated professionals who charge around 15x the average UK hourly wage, often in life-changing circumstances, and sometimes bankrupting clients in the process. (Pro-bono excluded, of course!).

"Not sure what you think your going to the legal ombudsman for" seems a strange statement - it's to check, uphold and enforce those standards if needed.

We do it with all other professions, why not solicitors? In the last 5 years I've had one sacked, one forced to refund £2,000, and one firm with their first ever SRA finding plus nominal £280 compensation.

In every case, I've given them more than enough chances to act in the manner instructed or agreed, but I'm wondering if I'm slowly working towards solicitor #4.

(Note: Not ALL legal professionals are bad - the barrister that won my latest case was exceptional, in spite of the solicitor failures that nearly crashed the trial).

[JK2054]

well firstly you can't go to the legal ombudsman without first having gone through internal complaints though, and you havent said you've done so my question remains not sure what you think your going to need them for.

Secondly, you need to understand they have other clients, they will undoubtebly be working on other cases. they work to tight deadlines to secure the best results they can, the fact they didn't reply to your email is unfortunate for you, but its incredibly common. The fact that you take them to the SRA/ombudsman might be great for you, but all your really doing is putting someone under even more pressure.

Your case is out of court, you should be giving 1-2 months per reply. especially given I assume you're not even billable anymore?

[islandgirl]

I agree re ombudsman and think that avenue is a red herring. However waiting so long for a reply is not acceptable. 1 or 2 months for a basic answer - I think not. I speak as someone with a kid who is "in the profession" albeit not in the same area

[JK2054]

Yes sorry let me be clear its not good, but its normal unfortunately.

[JK2054]

I agree re ombudsman and think that avenue is a red herring. However waiting so long for a reply is not acceptable. 1 or 2 months for a basic answer - I think not. I speak as someone with a kid who is "in the profession" albeit not in the same area

what bit is your kid in if you dont mind

[islandgirl]

intellectual property....

[JK2054]

awwww IP that's a shame.

[islandgirl]

not for him its not - he loves it!

[dazed]

Just a follow-up to this - Last Friday I finally got a confusing response from the director of the firm, part of which said:

You elected Crown Court trial and the matter came before a jury. The prosecution case was presented, and you spoke in your own defence. The Magistrates found either that the charges were not proved or that you had a reasonable excuse for the actions that you had taken which gave rise to the original complaint.

I wondered if "Magistrates" was an obscure legal term for jury members, but Google doesn't think so. And while I was questioned by both barristers, I spent the remainder of the time watching from within a glass box. Is it possible he's got the case confused?

On Monday, the barrister's advice finally arrived, with apologies for the delay, but it wasn't what I expected.

During the trial, the judge had made strong criticism of wording of the original order, calling it both "broad" and "vague". After the trial, my barrister said something like "Your honour, I wonder if we may deal with the terms/wording of the order". The judge said she "won't touch it" because she had been the presiding judge, but I recall it being indicated that it should be dealt with by someone.

As we parted, all 6 of us definitely recalled the barrister saying she would write a "legal note" regarding how I could go about amending the order in light of the judge's comments.

Here's part of the note:

I have considered whether [the] recent acquittal could be said to be a material change in circumstances. While it is a new event, I do not think it can be said to amount to a change. Nothing has in fact changed: [they] and their son all still live in [xxx]...

The position would be different were there evidence that led to the absolutely inescapable conclusion that [she] had made false complaints to the police about [him]. However, there is no such evidence. Short of [her] confessing to making false complaints, I do not see how there could be. When the jury acquitted [him], it found that it could not be sure of his guilt. A Court cannot treat that finding as evidence that [she] lied.

This doesn't seem to relate to my concerns. The barrister is young and bright, but very busy - she seemed to be shuffling between other cases in the breaks in my trial. Indeed, she successfully prosecuted another defendant on the same day as my full trial day, apparently in our lunch break! So it's possible that she forgot the exact conversation in the 3 weeks since.

It's also not quite right to say that there's "no evidence" that false complaints were made to the police - a key part of the defence was that we proved, absolutely and beyond doubt, that I could not have done one of the three things, and that the other two were malicious complaints designed to deflect from her own impending prosecution by the school of my son's low attendance. The actual police calls were played in court and transcribed. This is why the prosecution was initially rejected TWICE by the CPS, and only rejuvenated when the police decided to enact a VRR three months after my NFA, and in the same week I made a complaint to them. And even once "live", the dates and facts of the actual charges kept morphing between 6 and 3 charges (eventually 3 - but one had been dropped because it was clear she'd fabricated a date).


But here's the most important part:

The Crown Court restraining order on which I was being prosecuted reproduced the exact terms of an expiring Family Court non-mol order and extended it for 5 years without referring back to the Family Court.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...raining-orders says (among other things):

4. Particular care should be taken when children are involved to ensure that the order does not make it impossible for contact to take place between a parent and a child where such contact is otherwise appropriate.

The family court order has expired, therefore there is no family court order that states that contact is not appropriate. The private family and public criminal courts are two different domains with widely differing evidential tests, and I understand this to be a "defective" order because it conflicts with both the CPS guidance as well as Article 8 of the ECHR.


In fact, the following paragraph was provided to me on an "anonymous" basis by someone that I understand to be a qualified and respected family court barrister:

This is a complex case involving 1 Family Court order and 1 Crown Court order. The latter order overlapped with the now-expired 2 year Family Court order for a short while, and extended it for a further 5 years. I understand that the duplicated and extended orders provide for no contact with the child of the family by father or any of the paternal family for a period of 7 years between 2021 and 2027. This despite father retaining full parental rights. The Crown Court order appears to have been made without any involvement of the Family Court or further expert assessment. It follows that an argument could be made that the order made in the Crown Court is a so-called “defective order” and be challenged on that basis.

The solicitor said:

"The legal aid on criminal matters extends only to the criminal proceedings themselves, and advice on appeal in respect of the original proceedings. "

I understand this to mean that, as I was acquitted, there's no appeal, and therefore this concludes the legally aided portion.

This case - although won - has left me unemployed and with substantial debt; the process certainly is the punishment.

Before I try to go back to work, what are my options now while I still have the possibility of full legal aid?

Finally, here's a more complete version of what the solicitor's director wrote to me - interesting to note that there's been no comment from the actual instructing solicitor herself.
And again, it completely misses the point - this isn't about getting to see my son again. That ship has sailed for now and that part of my life has been destroyed. This is about ensuring that malicious and vexatious complaints don't start up again the moment I go back to work, due to an extremely broad and vaguely worded "highly unusual" order which bears no relation to the time, date, location or circumstances of the thing I was supposed to have done in the first place.

Any thoughts on any of this? Is it investigative journalist time? Not to have a go at the solicitor, but to take this further and higher?

Having confirmed that they were taking no further action, they [police] then reported their decision to your former partner, who demanded a review of that decision. Following that review, the police and the CPS decided that the allegations and facts which supported those allegations warranted your prosecution.

You elected Crown Court trial and the matter came before a jury. The prosecution case was presented, and you spoke in your own defence. The Magistrates found either that the charges were not proved or that you had a reasonable excuse for the actions that you had taken which gave rise to the original complaint.

This, to that extent, was a vindication for you.

This raises a proposition that the complaints made by your former partner have very little to do with the object of the original restraining order and that her complaints and persistence in pursuit of them was motivated largely through trying to present you as a very unreasonable person.

I understand that you have been feeling significantly aggrieved by the original restraining order that was imposed. You have spoken of wanting to appeal the original restraining order. I think the order was made such a long time ago that the prospects of persuading an Appeal Court to actually hear an appeal out of time are close to nil and that the fact of acquittal on the recent charges themselves would not be a ground for appeal.

Until and unless that order is removed or expires through time, then the prospects of pursuing an application for contact with your son are going to be pretty remote.

I note that this is entirely unsatisfactory from your perspective, but your own angst is not a basis for supporting the proposition that contact should or will take place with [your son].

[JK2054]

not for him its not - he loves it!

ah thats good glad he likes it

[JK2054]

Just a follow-up to this - Last Friday I finally got a confusing response from the director of the firm, part of which said:



I wondered if "Magistrates" was an obscure legal term for jury members, but Google doesn't think so. And while I was questioned by both barristers, I spent the remainder of the time watching from within a glass box. Is it possible he's got the case confused?

On Monday, the barrister's advice finally arrived, with apologies for the delay, but it wasn't what I expected.

During the trial, the judge had made strong criticism of wording of the original order, calling it both "broad" and "vague". After the trial, my barrister said something like "Your honour, I wonder if we may deal with the terms/wording of the order". The judge said she "won't touch it" because she had been the presiding judge, but I recall it being indicated that it should be dealt with by someone.

As we parted, all 6 of us definitely recalled the barrister saying she would write a "legal note" regarding how I could go about amending the order in light of the judge's comments.

Here's part of the note:





This doesn't seem to relate to my concerns. The barrister is young and bright, but very busy - she seemed to be shuffling between other cases in the breaks in my trial. Indeed, she successfully prosecuted another defendant on the same day as my full trial day, apparently in our lunch break! So it's possible that she forgot the exact conversation in the 3 weeks since.

It's also not quite right to say that there's "no evidence" that false complaints were made to the police - a key part of the defence was that we proved, absolutely and beyond doubt, that I could not have done one of the three things, and that the other two were malicious complaints designed to deflect from her own impending prosecution by the school of my son's low attendance. The actual police calls were played in court and transcribed. This is why the prosecution was initially rejected TWICE by the CPS, and only rejuvenated when the police decided to enact a VRR three months after my NFA, and in the same week I made a complaint to them. And even once "live", the dates and facts of the actual charges kept morphing between 6 and 3 charges (eventually 3 - but one had been dropped because it was clear she'd fabricated a date).


But here's the most important part:

The Crown Court restraining order on which I was being prosecuted reproduced the exact terms of an expiring Family Court non-mol order and extended it for 5 years without referring back to the Family Court.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...raining-orders says (among other things):

4. Particular care should be taken when children are involved to ensure that the order does not make it impossible for contact to take place between a parent and a child where such contact is otherwise appropriate.

The family court order has expired, therefore there is no family court order that states that contact is not appropriate. The private family and public criminal courts are two different domains with widely differing evidential tests, and I understand this to be a "defective" order because it conflicts with both the CPS guidance as well as Article 8 of the ECHR.


In fact, the following paragraph was provided to me on an "anonymous" basis by someone that I understand to be a qualified and respected family court barrister:




The solicitor said:

"The legal aid on criminal matters extends only to the criminal proceedings themselves, and advice on appeal in respect of the original proceedings. "

I understand this to mean that, as I was acquitted, there's no appeal, and therefore this concludes the legally aided portion.

This case - although won - has left me unemployed and with substantial debt; the process certainly is the punishment.

Before I try to go back to work, what are my options now while I still have the possibility of full legal aid?

Finally, here's a more complete version of what the solicitor's director wrote to me - interesting to note that there's been no comment from the actual instructing solicitor herself.
And again, it completely misses the point - this isn't about getting to see my son again. That ship has sailed for now and that part of my life has been destroyed. This is about ensuring that malicious and vexatious complaints don't start up again the moment I go back to work, due to an extremely broad and vaguely worded "highly unusual" order which bears no relation to the time, date, location or circumstances of the thing I was supposed to have done in the first place.

Any thoughts on any of this? Is it investigative journalist time? Not to have a go at the solicitor, but to take this further and higher?

nope they are completely right. From what i've read and understood, I would agree with what they're saying.

You've won your case. I don't really know why you want more.