Thread: Solicitor's letter received

Originally Posted by Road_Hog

These people will be charging a minimum of £200 + VAT p/h, more if its senior staff or a partner. That must (it should be if it isn't) be a standard template letter warning notice, that is sent out to any company that they want to remove stuff from websites etc. All they then need to do is insert the company details and the relevant information.

Despite the grand name and the pretence of numbers, there is only one solicitor listed as operating out of the company. It is a limited company, unlike most solicitor's firms that are partnerships. I think the 'secretary' referred to is also Jane Stanley Phillips' partner and co-director of the company, hence why he is not named twice. A trawl around companies house or one of the company registration websites will provide interesting reading. There are several companies linked to the named individuals, but filed accounts are rare and other work cannot be found on the Internet (no mention of successful representation of clients). There is one set of filed accounts that shows a turnover of over £45k in the year that NG paid £40k plus for a constitution. Constitutional law is not listed as one of the company's specialisations on its Law Society listing.

Fancy letter heads and a bombastic way of writing probably work quite frequently in getting people to acquiesce.

But what I find fascinating is where companies keep their registered offices as well as offices. These lot seem to keep their's at their office address. They do not mention their office address anywhere on the letter which is a little strange. And when you look at where their office is, stuck in the middle of a small industrial park miles from anywhere, you have to question whether they are a serious company or not. I would be surprised if they ever meet clients face to face in their offices, because if it was me, I wouldn't be very impressed.

I know that that isn't really a deciding factor but coupled to the biggest sin (spelling the company's name incorrectly), I think that we can sum up these guys' professionalism. And they have done something that I absolutely hate. I am sure that it is legal, but it again shows to me how unprofessional they are - who has written to Anthony? Having some scrawl (I think it says I S H) above the misspelt company name is rather meaningless. If I get a threatening "legal" letter, then I damn well want to know the name of the person who has written to me, and not just the company.

The things which got me were their/her claim to copyright and the misuse of the 'without prejudice' get out. Neither offer any protection in this instance.

I guess when you see things like this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--lj9cDG4KR...1600/claim.jpg that it is easy to get confused.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

The things which got me were their/her claim to copyright and the misuse of the 'without prejudice' get out. Neither offer any protection in this instance.

Nice to have decent ( I trust ) legal opinion ( as in normal "opinion" not the sort you have to pay for ) here Aardvark. I hope that the administrator here is not feeling the pressure.


I believe that if I put things in quotations it's not possible to get sued for liable so here goes;


"These are the sort of sc*m suching leaches that give the legal industry of sc*m sucking leaches a bad name by not even doing it well. Cretins. ( Apologies to Cretins )."

Perhaps it's time to put quotation marks around everything we all write here?

you have to use the word allegedly, allegedly.

A certain West African country comes to mind, wonder if they have a branch Office there......