Name of the person you are reporting: Phil Smith (formerly of Tuckers)
Name of the firm: Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP
Firms’ address and postcode: 87-91 Newman Street, London W1T 3EY
Firms’ phone number: +44 (0)20 3206 2700
Dear Sirs,
Formal Complaint about Tuckers Solicitors LLP & Mr. Phil Smith (previously of Tuckers LLP)
I am writing to make a formal complaint against Tuckers Solicitors LLP (SRA ID: 592449) and Mr. Phil Smith (SRA ID: 161171) who had conduct of my case at the relevant time. It is my understanding that Mr. Smith has subsequently left Tuckers LLP but remains a practicing solicitor working as a partner at Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP.
Representation by Tuckers LLP and Mr. Phil Smith
Tuckers LLP was instructed on a privately-funded basis and the solicitor with conduct of my case was Mr. Phil Smith. I was informed that Mr. Smith would be the solicitor dealing with my case and would remain my point of contact but this turned out not to be the case and a great deal of communication was conducted by others.
During the period between being charged with Perverting the Course of Justice and the eventual trial in September 2013, the following relevant matters occurred:
I signed a ‘retainer’ with Tuckers LLP. However, this was not explained to me and I did not understand what I was signing;
I came under the care of prison medical services for mental health symptoms;
In early April 2013, Tuckers LLP obtained a psychiatric report from ____________________________which raised some serious mental health issues and suggested further investigation. ____________________________
The police continued to investigate ____________________________
At the first meeting on the 1st of March 2013, Mr. Smith brought his trainee. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Smith was fully aware of my confused, shell-shocked and vulnerable status as a professional in prison for the first time. I was extremely worried about my family and my young child and was also suffering from ____________________________. Mr. Smith asked me to hurriedly sign a piece of A4 paper, which at the time I thought was authority to obtain papers from my previous solicitors, my medical records and to take over my case. In fact, it turned out to be a ‘retainer’ which I was not given sufficient time to consider, nor had it explained to me, before being asked to sign.
I was not aware, nor was it explained to me, how the billing worked. In addition, it was not explained to me that I could be eligible for legal aid and therefore might not need to pay Tuckers LLP privately.
By an email on the 6th of March 2013, Mr. Smith categorically confirmed that Tuckers LLP were not billing for the attendance of his trainee, Ms. Ronson. She was only in attendance for his benefit: ‘so that we can cover ground quickly as she keeps thorough notes. Consequently at no stage will he be billed for any attendance by my trainee. I will simply charge out for my attendance only.’
An invoice dated 1st March 2013 showed that the train fare charged by Mr. Smith included a further fare for his trainee, Ms. Ronson. It amounted to £134.00. The travel fares for that day also included a car parking fee of £24.00 and a taxi for £19.00.
An invoice dated 19th March 2013 showed that the train fare charged by Mr. Smith again included a fare for Ms. Ronson. In total it amounted to £438.00. The travel fares for that day also included a car parking fee of £24.00 and a taxi for £17.60.
On the 20th of March 2013, Ms. Ronson sent an email to Paula Cochrane (cc Mr. Smith), which highlights their attitude towards both me as a client and doing work without explaining the position to me. It stated the following:
‘He is a very lucrative client for the firm so please send the letter out asap. The matter is privately funded and if your work goes beyond this letter, the client will put you in funds.’
An invoice dated 26th March 2013 showed that the train fare charged by Mr. Smith amounted to £240.00. The travel fares for that day also included a car parking fee of £24.00 and a taxi for £17.50.
On the 23rd of April 2013, Tuckers LLP requested the deposit of a further £9000.
On the 9th of April 2013, Tuckers LLP was informed that I had been given medication by the prison but had not taken it, as I didn’t know what it was for or why it had been prescribed.
From subsequent disclosure, it is apparent that I was being charged to allow for Ms. Ronson to make basic queries of her colleagues. For example, on the 1st of May 2013, she emailed Paula Cochrane (cc Mr. Smith) stating:
‘I assume no news from the prison re our letter of complaint? What’s the next step? Also, will a person’s prison rights improve if they plead? Ie How does that affect their ability to move to an open prison etc?’
On the 2nd of May 2013, my sister passed on my instructions to Tuckers LLP, as follows:
‘Abdul has asked that Dr. Cree write an addendum as a matter of urgency that he is suffering from depression and therefore is not in a fit state to give his instructions in his civil court cases, or alternatively, the report to be passed on to his GP for his GP to write a note of the same.’
On the 9th of May 2013, after a query was made about the fees being paid, Tuckers LLP sent copies of itemised bills. These only covered the period up to the date of the previous bill, the 15th of April 2013.
On the 13th of May 2013, Tuckers LLP sent a new invoice purporting to cover all work carried out to date. It added:
‘Further to Phil’s conversation with ____________________________ this afternoon, it is apparent that he will be attending in person on Abdul on a number of occasions over the next few weeks. Accordingly, to include these attendances together with the continuing preparation on Abdul’s case. I should be obliged if you would deposit the sum of £7000 plus VAT (£8,400) to clear this invoice and on account of funds.’
On the 29th of May 2013, my sister raised concerns over the billing. She questioned whether Counsels had been paid £5000 for a bail application. She again asked for clarification over fees. She was informed that Counsel’s fee for the bail application was only £1500 plus VAT.
My family had been informed that the brief fee for Counsel included unlimited conferences. On the 5th of June 2013, my sister put her concerns to Tuckers LLP:
‘Will relay back, can we be clear re Dein’s fees. Discussed 15k and either 1500/1750. Can we stick with 1500 refresher. And Dein is abroad August. So if first conference with Dein is 24 June, that leaves only July for a couple more conferences? As you stated unlimited conferences within the brief fee of 15k when we last discussed counsel’s fees.’
In response, my sister was told that:
‘Phil is requesting visits for 2nd, 9th and 15th July. We will make a decision about future conferences with Jeremy collectively after the initial conference.’
On the 28th of June 2013, my family was sent a new invoice purporting to cover all work carried out to date. It stated:
‘In order to settle the outstanding balance and future attendances – we have visits booked on 2 and 9 July, kindly place us in funds of £12,000 plus VAT (£14,400).’
On the 16th of July 2013, my family specifically requested a conference with Counsel in the case, given that the brief fee purported to include unlimited conferences. They expressed surprise that no further conferences had been booked. When I asked about this I was ‘stonewalled’. Mr. Smith said that it was unnecessary as he was preparing the case. It is clear that this was a mistake as his advice was clearly negligent and without the benefit of Counsel. In fact, despite the promise of unlimited conferences, only two or three conferences were conducted with Counsel for the entire period running up to trial.
A second DCS, drafted by Tuckers LLP, was submitted in July 2013. I know that it was drafted by Mr. Smith, as I was told this by trial Counsel at the trial. It was a hand-written, shoddy piece of work that consisted of six lines. ____________________________ Tuckers LLP failed to investigate the true source of the calls. I specifically requested Tuckers LLP to investigate and obtain evidence to confirm that ____________________________made the calls. However, no investigation was completed in line with my instructions.
Days before the trial was due to commence, Tuckers LLP bullied and threatened my wife by suggesting that they would withdraw from the trial unless further substantial fees were not paid.
When he spoke to my family, Mr. Smith was rude, aggressive and condescending. My family have confirmed that they felt helpless and could not say anything as the trial was only days away. They did not want to jeopardise my prospects.
I have since learnt that Mr. Smith has told them to ‘shut up’, slammed the phone down and been continually condescending by telling them they ‘didn’t understand’. Had I known about his behaviour, I would have immediately terminated their services.
Despite the threats in relation to the fees payable to Tuckers LLP, I was not warned that I would not be able to recover defence fees or advised about the risk of prosecution fees being awarded against me.
At my trial in September 2013, I was represented by Jeremy Dein QC, who was instructed by Tuckers LLP. Mr. Smith arranged to have his trainee take notes of the trial. This was never agreed but I was billed a substantial fee (£750 per day) for her attendance.
Failure to Obtain Psychiatric Evidence
Tuckers LLP were aware of a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that I was suffering from severe problems with my mental health, both at the time of the alleged offences and at trial. Despite this, the only psychiatric report commissioned by Tuckers LLP was from Dr. Cree and dated 5th of April 2013. The following is apparent from the face of the report:
____________________________, Tuckers LLP had noticed a deterioration in my mental health;
____________________________
Subsequent to my representation by Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith, and my complaints about them, a full psychiatric report has been completed by Dr. David Ho. This was requested at the behest of those who are conducting my appeal against conviction. I am currently being represented by ____________________________ in my appeal. Dr. Ho’s report was commissioned in order to assess my mental state at the time of the alleged offences and during the trial process. ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
The witness evidence that has subsequently been compiled by my current solicitors, ____________________________.
As part of the appeal process, Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith have been disclosed the psychiatric report by Dr. Ho. Despite further questions being from Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith about his opinion on the circumstances of the case, it remains unchanged. Indeed, when asked to specifically address whether comments by Tuckers LLP/Mr. Smith affected his original conclusions and, if so, whether he wished to reconsider his conclusions, he stated:
____________________________
In relation to whether the issue of fitness to plead was explored by Tuckers’ Solicitors/Mr. Smith, Dr. Ho states:
‘This was evidently not explored and therefore, I have a degree of concern regarding his progression through the judicial process and subsequently imprisonment.’
It is now clear that the report by Dr. Cree was commissioned, either wholly or mainly, with a view to a bail application being made. Mr. Smith did not request a further psychiatric assessment to properly deal with my mental state at the time of the alleged offences and/or to deal with my fitness to stand trial, despite the wealth of evidence suggesting a breakdown in my mental health and significantly deteriorating psychiatric condition.
Furthermore Tuckers LLP/Mr. Smith were aware of significant other evidence relating to my state of mind. The evidence related to my behaviour before and after the report completed by Dr. Cree. A (non-exhaustive) list of the evidence known to Tuckers LLP/Mr. Smith is summarised below:
‘____________________________
____________________________’
There is also further relevant evidence which would have been available to Tuckers LLP/Mr. Smith, had basic enquiries been made. The contemporaneous material is summarised below:
‘____________________________
____________________________’
Mr. Smith also had possession of a letter from Dr. Stevens dated 13th may 2013, My GP, which indicated that my mental health was so severely compromised that I could not manage my affairs. Tuckers LLP/Mr. Smith failed to make any enquiries and/or instruct a psychiatrist to compile a further report.
Further Complaints
In addition to the above matters, as previously outlined in correspondence to Tuckers LLP, I wish to make specific complaints in relation to the following conduct.
Mr. Smith asked for weekly meetings, stating that the prison video conference system and postal mail could be listened into and relayed back to the police. I have since been advised that this is untrue, as legal professional privilege would have applied to the conversations and correspondence. I believe Mr. Smith insisted on face-to-face meetings in order to deliberately inflate the bill. He also billed for hours between 9.00am to 11.00am yet always arrived late, usually between 9.15am and 9.30am. On the one occasion Mr. Smith came in the afternoon he was twenty minutes late. The visitor logs from HMP Nottingham confirm this.
I had asked for a written advice setting out the merits of the case. This never materialised, as Mr. Smith informed me that the prison could read our correspondence. He never told me that this would have been the subject of legal privilege.
When we had meetings, it was clear that Mr. Smiths had a poor grasp of facts with mistakes in relation to dates, timings and events. It was clear that he had done little or no preparation. My family spent a large amount of time refreshing his memory about the relevant points, as opposed to discussing the overall tactics of the case.
It reached a stage where my family and I had so little confidence in Tuckers LLP that a conference had to be organised with my family, in order to highlight the serious deficiencies in Mr. Smith’s work. Despite the subject matter, Mr. Smith went on to bill me for this meeting. This took place on the 5th June 2013. The attendance note from Tuckers LLP, which was supplied in their response to my subsequent complaint, states:
‘Issues with sporadic visits - ____________________________’
I do not accept that this was a case that was particularly complex or voluminous. There was not a huge amount of material to absorb and recall. Mr. Smith simply did not adequately prepare the case or have a sufficient grasp of the papers.
I also asked for an estimated fixed fee encompassing all of the work to be undertaken. They initially said would definitely give me this once they had received all the paperwork from the CPS in April 2013. I therefore dispute that it is impossible to give a fixed or ‘capped’ fee. I believe that this is entirely misleading. I was never provided with this information.
On many occasions I asked Tuckers LLP for a breakdown of the billing in order to see that they could justify the time they had billed. Payments were requested from my family either by a text from Mr. Smith’s trainee or via email to my family.
In January 2014, I complained to Mr. Smith about his conduct in the case and his billing. This was not even acknowledged and the complaint itself was ignored. Mr. Smith, rather than responding to my complaint, then sent an agent from Druckers Limited to serve a bankruptcy petition on the 19th February 2014. The agent returned on the 26th February 2014. I sent a copy of my complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. I believe, as a direct result of this, the agent from Druckers was not instructed further. Since that date, Mr. Smith has not chased up the remainder of the bill. I consider this to be because Mr. Smith has been dishonest both in his conduct and in his billing.
I requested copies of the emails between Tuckers LLP, the police, CPS and Counsel. I also asked for evidence showing travel costs, as well as justification for parking and any other relevant journeys. There was no need for any parking costs, as Mr. Smith’s office is in central London and a very short distance from the station. As has been confirmed, Mr. Smith and his trainee travelled to Nottingham first class. I did not agree to their first class travel costs. Tuckers LLP knew in advance which days they would see me and yet only on some occasions did they attempt to obtain cheaper tickets. I am yet to receive full confirmation of all the work done and billing invoiced in the case. I believe that this is a straightforward case of abuse of trust where the billing figures were deliberately inflated.
On the 25th of February 2014, I submitted a complaint to Tuckers LLP (the firm). I summarised my concerns. As stated above, I have also complained to the Legal Ombudsman.
Following my complaint, Tuckers LLP suggested the following by way of a response:
‘Billing for Henrietta Ronson - Ms. Ronson attended most prison visits with Mr Smith and was integral in assisting Mr Smith in the preparation of your defence. It was agreed that Ms. Ronson's time for attending those many meetings would not be charged and no charge has been made. Ms. Ronson did undertake work on your file entirely independently from those meetings at which Mr Smith also attended. It was not agreed that no charge would be made for this work and this work has been charged at the rate you were advised of at the outset.’
This is simply not true, as the email correspondence confirms.
This was a very simple case and yet Tuckers LLP have shockingly managed to invoice over £130,000.00 in relation to it.
I feel that Mr. Smith took advantage of my ____________________________ and reduced mental capacity, as well my family’s vulnerability. This was compounded by ____________________________ cancer in July 2013, eight weeks before my trial. She died in November 2013.
Breach of the SRA Principles/Code of Conduct
I therefore wish to make a formal complaint about Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith. In relation to the above, this can be broken down into the following (non-exhaustive) categories:
Failure to prepare the case and advise appropriately:
Advise what document I was signing when I was first visited (the ‘retainer’);
Advise me that there was a ‘cooling off’ period;
Allow me to take advice from others about the ‘retainer’;
Inform me that I might be eligible for Legal Aid and therefore did not have to instruct them on a privately-paying basis;
Advise that I might be liable for prosecution costs;
Advise that I would not be able to recover defence costs in full, whether successful or not;
Properly prepare, or prepare at all, for conferences;
Misrepresented the position where it was stated I would be able to have ‘unlimited’ conferences with Counsel, when only three were undertaken and/or failed to secure conferences with Counsel;
Misrepresented the fact that conferences must be undertaken face-to-face, as otherwise the prison authorities would listen in/pass the information onto the police;
Failed to explain legal professional privilege;
Failed to provide an adequately drafted Defence Case Statement;
Provide a written advice in relation to the merits.
Failure to act on my instructions:
Investigate and/or make sufficient enquiries to ascertain whether ____________________________, despite being specifically requested to do so by me.
Excessive billing and lack of information about billing:
Insufficient information about how the billing was structure
Insufficient information provided generally about the costs of the case, including estimates and invoices;
Allowed the costs to escalate out of control;
Refused to provide me with a figure for total costs on a fixed-fee basis;
Deliberately billed for items that were not agreed, either in advance or otherwise;
Deliberately billed for time spent at prison when they were late and/or left early;
Failed to justify parking when travelling by train, first class travel, etc.;
Failed to provide me with a detailed breakdown of all the billing in the case.
Mental state:
Took advantage of my mental state, as I was suffering from (at the very least) acute stress, anxiety and depression;
Placed undue pressure on me, given my mental state.
Incivility:
Mr. Smith was rude and condescending to my family when speaking to them;
Bullied into paying costs;
Placed pressure on the family, days before the trial, by saying they would withdraw if further substantial fees were not paid.
Psychiatric evidence:
Failed to provide proper instructions to a psychiatric expert in order to establish answers to the relevant issues;
Failed to recognise that I was obviously suffering from significant mental health problems and/or ignored the same;
Failed to gather evidence, including contemporaneous witness evidence or otherwise, to support the fact that I was obviously suffering from severe psychiatric problems at the time of the allegations and/or showing that I was unfit to stand trial;
Failed to obtain an additional/addendum report dealing with the severe psychiatric problems I had at the time of the allegations and/or that showed I was unfit to stand trial;
Failed to notice a significant deterioration in my mental health over the period of representation;
Failure to rely upon evidence of my relevant mental state during the bail application and/or the trial process;
Placed undue pressure on me.
From the above, it is clear that Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith breached the SRA Principles, in that (at the very least) they did not:
Act with integrity;
Act in my best interests, in that they did not always act in good faith and/or do their best for me;
Provide a proper standard of service to me. They did not exercise competence, skill and (in particular) diligence;
Behave in a way that maintained the trust members of the public, like me, places in them and in the provision of legal services;
Comply with their legal and regulatory obligations and deal with complaints and/or the ombudsman in an open, timely and co-operative manner.
Furthermore, no further enquiry was made into my mental health after April 2013, such as making contact with the prison medical service or instructing Dr. Cree to provide an additional/addendum report. It is therefore clear that, despite the substantial amount of money spent on representation, Tuckers LLP and Mr. Smith breached the SRA Principles in relation to this aspect of my case, in that (at the very least) they did not:
Act in my best interests, in that they did not always act in good faith and/or do their best for me;
Provide a proper standard of service to me. They did not exercise competence, skill and (in particular) diligence;
Behave in a way that maintained the trust members of the public, like me, places in them and in the provision of legal services.
Impact of the Breaches
As a direct result of the breaches of the SRA Principles and the Code of Conduct, and the failures in the ability to act with integrity, uphold the trust I had in them, act in my best interests and/or provide a proper standard of service, I was convicted of three offences and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, was ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £4000 and costs in the sum of £23,395.00.
Furthermore, I was found unfit to practice medicine and was erased from the list of registered practitioners. I have therefore suffered significant financial and reputational loss as a direct result. My physical and mental health has been affected and it has caused my family a significant amount of stress.
I understand that you are required to respond formally to my complaint. I therefore look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. In the meantime, if you need any further information from me, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully,