Misleading the Court? As a Witness? As a Representative?

As stated on the home page, my complaints directly to the Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen (ALCD) pre-date this website.  Furthermore, the (seeming) partial success to date of this "open" method of complaint has provided some of the inspiration for this site.  Is the ALCD's approach a result of Clementi and the Government shake up?

Being small the ALCD may always have taken things seriously and policed their Members well... but we will certainly see how they measures up in their "regulatory" capacity today.  Will the ALCD allow Nigel Long to continue as a "Fellow" Member?  Will they take any disciplinary steps?  For the latest News please check the Weblog Section.

The current state-of-play (at the time of writing) is ... The ALCD has accepted the complaint.  Nigel Long has responded to some "heads".  We are (I think) awaiting his response on Heads 4 and 5.  Finally a REAL result!  Nigel Long is to attend a Disciplinary Tribunal on 23rd October 2008 at the offices of Herbert Smith in London.  Wow!!!

Below is a somewhat cleaned-up and simplified version of the original "heads" of complaint made to the ALCD about their Member Nigel Long.  I have done my best but I can't guarantee clarity, so please email any questions, suggestions or feedback?  Contact details on the FAQ/Contact page.

Official, Open and Public Complaint to the ALCD

The Letters and WeBLOG Section

A costs draughtsman to avoid "at all costs" - Nigel Long, 9 Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare, BS23 1NN

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:

I believe Nigel Long 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 (external link) - 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 a handful 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 ... (note that the draft judgement, with only two minor modifications, neither of which related to Nigel Long was formally handed down (draft no-longer) on 25th June 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?

Interesting link? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article3456104.ece 

Second Head of Complaint

In December 2004 Nigel Douglas Long deceived District Judge Brookes as follows:-

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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".

5. 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. 

6. 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.

7. 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 Members who behave 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"?

Third Head of Complaint

Another of Long's "bills" included double charging by Elaine Pitman.  Best seen on the Pitman Page - (external links - both) 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 (though we now live in hope with the birth of this site)) - 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 YOUR Members break the rules of decency?

Fourth Head of Complaint

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?)

Fifth Head of Complaint

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?  You have started well ... what next? 

The solicitor in question, Patricia Wyman, Senior Partner, was also in breach of...

1. Direct Court orders

2. The FPR, the CPR, and the CPD

3. The Solicitor's Practice Rules

4. The Law Society Rules

5. Section 42 of the Access to Justice Act 1999

6. Her duty to the Court under CPR1 - (on numerous occasions)

FDC Law is also guilty of...

1. Professional Misconduct

2. Professional Negligence

3. Misleading District Judge Rutherford on 29/07/03

4. Misleading H H J Barclay on 08/09/2004 (through Council, Catriona Duthie)

5. Misleading D J Brookes in December 2004 (by her signature and by failing to supervise Nigel Long)

6. Misleading H H J Cardinal on 01/08/2005

Aided and abetted by Nigel Long (ALCD) and Elaine Pitman (ILEX)?  The evidence suggests a conspiracy to cover-up and hide this serious misconduct and dishonesty!  Or were they both totally "innocent" - judge for yourself?

The EVIDENCE suggests that various Partners in FDC Law must have conspired for YEARS to keep this under wraps.  This includes lying to the Law Society (unless, of course, the Law Society lied to ME?).  I believe this conspiracy INCLUDED Nigel Long and Elaine Pitman as well as their Councel David Curwen.  I ask all "regulators" and "professional bodies" to properly investigate this and to report their findings.

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

Update 16th July 2008

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

The complaints to the ACLD in their original form may be found here, with mirrors here and here (all these open in a new window)

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.

[Home] [More Firms to Avoid?]