Since 2003 this web site has urged the public NOT to use this Firm of solicitors... now part of QualitySolicitors...

FDC Law, Norton House, High Street, Midsomer Norton, BA3 2DF - this Firm also has offices in Frome and Paulton.  To read WHY - click here for the OLD site

30th January 2011 - Update

I am updating this page in response to a misleading article which appeared on FDL Law's own web site dated 13th December 2010. Here

Firstly, it is gratifying that FDC Liar is STILL getting grief over this. I only hope they are still losing Clients.
Secondly, read the bold paragraph below. Remember these are SOLICITORS. To say any ONE of these things might be defamation and yet FDC Law CANNOT prevent publication of ANY of this because they KNOW that I can prove EVERY WORD is TRUE.

FDC Law is guilty of: Professional Misconduct, Professional Negligence, Misleading District Judge Rutherford of the Bath County Court (and other judges), signing false declarations on bills of costs, totally ignoring the Client Care Code (law society rules), refusing the requests of the Law Society, double-charging, Inadequate Professional Service and LYING.

FDC Laws conduct (misconduct) has all the hallmarks of CRIMINAL FRAUD!

If you need ANOTHER reason to avoid this firm: FDC Law LEAKS!.
I have numerous confidential documents from this firm that were handed to me, in the street, by an employee of FDC Law

THESE ARE FACTS - I recommend you AVOID THIS FIRM!

Finally, this firm cannot even protect it's OWN reputation. What will they do to YOURS?

The article is misleading:
It suggests that I am the only complainant and critic of FDC Law. I am not. This firm has MANY dissatisfied clients.
It suggests that I made all the entries about FDC Liar on Solicitors from Hell. Not true. There are 7, I made only 3

FDC LAW - Midsomer Norton, BANES  NOT me

FDC Law  Me

FDC Law  NOT me

FDC Law  Me

FDC Law  NOT me

FDC Law  NOT me

FDC Law - Midsomer Norton  Me

So 4 MORE dissatisfied clients? Interestingly the top link there also appears under "Most Shocking" - Rich's decision, nothing to do with me! I have emails from no less than THREE people saying very much the same about Tony Williams. I have 3 MORE dissatisfied clients (conveyancing matters from the Frome Office) and at least two from dissatisfied business clients (or former clients) of this firm!
And I didn't even bother to list lying tosser Nigel Long - the Costs Draughtsman regularly employed by FDC Liar - the former District Judge and solicitor who was fined £5,000 with £500 costs for LYING TO THE BATH COUNTY COURT ON BEHALF OF FDC LAW - on SFH!
Ask yourself: Why does and "honest" law firm NEED someone to lie for them?

The article is misleading:

It suggests that my comments are "inaccurate and misleading". They are FACT and NOT misleading.
It suggests that this was all long-ago. In fact Whelan's deceit was 2008 - and just look at the 2010 dates below.
It suggests that the employees have mostly left FDC Liar. In fact only ONE (of the three) I complained about has been ousted. Whelan and Pitman are STILL THERE - and (in all probability) STILL double-charging.

Ok, I COULD say a LOT more but it is not worth it. Feel free to call or email me if you want further information on this frim of shits - Spenser Poultney 01761 437078 - I recommend you avoid these Wankers at all costs - and tell your friends, too.

PS: http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/ABN.htm - take CARE!

30th January 2011 - Update ENDS

New! 09/02/2011The TOSSERS have done it again
This time Andrea Boucher, Frome Office

Urgent! Help Wanted 22/04/2010 - Court of Appeal

Click Here

This firm is guilty of Professional Negligence, Professional Misconduct, and DISHONESTY which includes the signing false declarations on their bills of costs.  A "most serious disciplinary offence" which has all the hallmarks of CRIMINAL FRAUD.

The following FACTS were mostly established in 2008.  FACTS which FDC Law and ONLY FDC Law knew at the outset and throughout proceedings.  It is a mark of their TRUTH that FDC Law, a dishonest firm of solicitors, is unable to prevent publication here.  

BACKGROUND FACTS - FDC LAW's LIES AND MISCONDUCT

Numbers in square brackets [xx] refer to the paragraphs in the Judgement of District Judge R James, Regional Costs Judge, handed down on 25th June 2008.  Dates in curly brackets {yyyy} relate to when the FACT was finally established.  Anyone reading the electronic copy may click the blue links for more details and evidence.

  1. [73] On 29th July 2003 the Senior Partner of FDC Law misled District Judge Mark Rutherford (Bath County Court) over costs in a family case. Catriona Duthie (Top 500) [here] was council appointed by FDC Law on that day. {2008}

  2. [72] Specifically, FDC Law asked for an Order for Ancillary Relief Costs in the sum of £6,187.50. Unknown to the District Judge (or Myself), the Form H upon which they based this claim included their Client’s other costs (Divorce and BA02F00456) – costs FDC Law KNEW that D J Rutherford had no authority to deal with or make orders about {2008}

  3. Proper procedures were NOT followed on 29/07/2003. There was no "debate about costs" and D J Rutherford simply rubber-stamped the figure put before by TRUSTED solicitors.

  4. The evidence shows that this deceit by FDC Law was both pre-meditated and deliberate.

  5. [45] We now know {2008} that those other costs totaled £1,823.60. We now know that the (AR) solicitors costs recorded by FDC Law at the time were in fact £3,072.80 and their "Estimate" of solicitors AR costs was only £3,170.15 {2008} We now know that the RATE upon which those estimates were based was £80/hr.

  6. [80] We now know {2008} that FDC Law had "completely ignored" the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999. This Inadequate Professional Service (IPS) would have made it difficult for FDC Law to claim ANY costs from their Client. This alone is motive for misleading D J Rutherford and seeking an Order against me that included these other costs. The client would not complain if she didn’t have to pay.

  7. In September 2003 FDC Law persuaded their Client to attempt to enforce the costs order by way of a Third Party Debt Order (BA301470). They did this in the full knowledge that the Order they were seeking to enforce:

    1. Had been obtained by misleading D J Rutherford.

    2. Included £1,823.60 of their Client’s own costs

  8. I have been a company director since 1988. I am certain that if I were to pursue Customer A through the courts for not ONLY their bill but ALSO that of Customer B then I would be GUILTY OF CRIMINAL FRAUD. I ask why it is NOT seen as FRAUD when the perpetrator is a TRUSTED SOLICITOR AND "FRIEND" OF THE JUDGE?

  9. In October 2003 District Judge Rutherford refused to make the order they were seeking in BA301470 and refused them further costs. Brendan Ferris was the solicitor representing FDC Law on that occasion. Despite this SECOND attempt to mislead Rutherford the truth did not come out. It was this "legal bullying" that first led me to complain to the Law Society about FDC Law in 2003.

  10. The evidence shows that FDC Law must have LIED to the Law Society in 2004. This is in addition to their refusing to provide further costs information when the Law Society ASKED them to - professional misconduct.

  11. With the OSS "investigation" going nowhere despite new evidence showing criminal double-charging I eventually decided to "appeal out of time".

  12. The appeal should never have been defended AT ALL if the TRUTH had been known and yet FDC Liar – the ONLY people who knew the truth - defended themselves at tax payers expense. As one would expect, they kept the TRUTH from His Honour Judge Barclay (Bristol County Court)… notwithstanding their professional duty to the Court, they did not admit:

    1. They had (twice) misled D J Rutherford

    2. They had attempted to enforce an Order they KNEW meant they were getting paid TWICE for the SAME work – i.e. double-charging.

    3. There was no contract {2008}and they had (indeed) "totally ignored" {2008}the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 - professional negligence.

    4. That I was RIGHT when I contended the reason for the uplift in their bill from the FDR to the Final Hearing was INDEED because they had included their client's own costs.

  13. Despite their "best efforts" (lies) my application was successful.  Mrs. Poultney was ordered to pay my costs and the beleaguered LSC (tax payer) had to line FDC Law’s pockets with up to £5,000 more for the "services" of Wayman and Duthie   FDC Law KNEW the TRUTH at the outset.  One view might be that FDC Law has STOLEN this money (from Client and tax payer) in order to pervert the course of justice.

  14. It is what happened NEXT, however, that is completely unforgivable and which H H J Barclay (nor anyone else) COULD have predicted.  Lies beget more lies and success in deceiving successive judges appears to have made them (if possible) even more arrogant and GREEDY than they already were.

  15. FDC Law employed the "services" of Nigel Douglas Long (FALCD), 9 Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare, BS23 1NN.  On paper Long looks respectable – a former solicitor that sat for 5 years as a deputy District Judge.  In 2008 the ALCD fined Nigel Long £5,000 with £500 costs for lying and deliberately trying to mislead the Court in THIS case and for his involvement in a further bill which fraudulently claimed £1,000’s in costs that FDC Law was NOT entitled to under the law. (click here)

  16. In 2008 we were to discover that Wayman had recorded only 32.7 hours for Ancillary Relief work. Long’s fabricated bill claimed in excess of 80 hours. The entire file was "missing" – so NOTHING could be checked by D J James – as EASY to arrange as writing the wrong case number on the box.

  17. Nigel Long's bill also claimed a RATE of £165/hr for the solicitor.  Wayman signed the bill for over £16,000 in the FULL knowledge that:

    17.1  The RATE used in all three Forms H was only £80/hr.  These were the estimates that I had relied on in bringing the appeal and upon which D J Rutherford and H H J Barclay (indeed, all earlier judges) had relied upon in making their orders.

    17.2  Wayman had written to her Client in October 2003 telling her that £6,187.50 MORE THAN covered her liability for Ancillary Relief work [here].

  18. In March 2008, Patricia Wayman, former Senior Partner of FDC Law finally admitted under oath that she should NOT have signed Long’s bill. Signing a false declaration on a bill is a most serious disciplinary offence. It is abuse of a position of TRUST tantamount to criminal fraud. I find it significant that:

    18.1 Wayman did NOT make the admission when I first raised the Indemnity Principle in 2005.  She remained silent through hearings by H H J Barclay, Her Honour Judge Deeley and H H J Cardinal.

    18.2 Wayman did did NOT make the admission when FDC Law again applied to D J Rutherford in 2006 for a charging order.  It appears they again misled D J Rutherford in the full knowledge that the underling order for £9,000 had been obtained by false declaration, that they were getting paid 2.5 times for the SAME work and that the other order had been obtained by keeping the TRUTH from H H J Cardinal.

    18.3 That Wayman waited until she had been retired for over a YEAR before admitting the truth.  After a year the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal will usually refuse to take disciplinary action against a solicitor.

  19. Armed with his fabricated "bill" and Waymans (now admitted) false declaration, Nigel Long went on to mislead District Judge Nigel Brookes in December 2004.  When I drew attention to the Form H estimates Long told D J Brookes that many of the TIMES were estimated.

    19.1  When D J Brookes took this to be the main reason for the HUGE uplift between the bill and the estimates Long did NOT correct the wrong assumption.  He did NOT tell D J Brookes that the MAIN reason for the difference was the DOUBLING of the rates claimed.  Long KNEW the TRUTH.  Failing to correct a wrong assumption is a LIE and Long knew this.

    19.2  When D J Brookes decided I should pay 150% of their Ancillary Relief estimate Long proceeded to use the SAME document (Final Form H) as Wayman and Duthie had used to mislead D J Rutherford on 29/07/2003.  He tricked D J Brookes into believing that the AR costs estimate was £6,000.  We now know that it was only £3,072.80.  Long had seen both the time ledger AND the bill rendered to Mrs. Poultney in June 2004 - he had NO excuse - he KNEW that the Final Form H actually contained £1,823.60 of costs D J Brookes had no authority to make any orders about.  In short Long tricked Brookes into an order for £9,000 that ensured FDC Liar was paid TWO AND A HALF TIMES for the costs of divorce and injunction.

  20. When my second appeal came around Duthie deserted them.  The found David Curwen (here).  From transcripts FDC Law knew of Nigel Longs lies as well as Waymans false declaration and yet they continued to pretend that everything was in order and above board.  When H H J Cardinal ALSO accepted the lies of Nigel Long as the "reason" for the uplift between estimates and bill, Curwen did NOT correct him with the TRUTH.  Nor, when we were looking at the Wayman's declaration, did Curwen admit that this was in fact a FALSE declaration.  In short, FDC Law KNEW the TRUTH but continued to pervert the course of justice to keep their misconduct and professional negligence secret whilst further lining their own pockets.

    In 2006, knowing the TRUTH behind the costs orders of D J Nigel Brookes and H H J Cardinal FDC Law again misled D J Rutherford and tricked him into making a fraudulent charging order.

    That Wayman and Long KNEW the doubling of RATES was unreasonable (it undermines the estimates and Section 2.16F of the FPR) is reflected in the FACT that they kept this SECRET until 2008.  They cannot deny gross professional negligence, acting unreasonably AND improperly.  They cannot deny a charge of dishonesty including the signing of false declarations on bills.

    On 26th February 2010 this statement will come before His Honour Judge John Mitchell (a High Court Judge) sitting in the Principal Registry of the Family Division, Gee St Court House, London.  Mitchell will not be able to deny FDC Laws professional negligence, and that they acted unreasonably AND improperly.  The real question is... will he break his judicial oath to protect FDC Liar or will he fulfill the Court's DUTY to "supervise" its solicitors and to restore justice with a Wasted Costs Order (here).  Why not join me and find out first hand?  The hearing is at 2:00pm

Statement of Truth

I, Spenser Michael Poultney, of Endersley, Welton Road Radsock, BA3 3UD confirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Spenser Poultney (28/01/2010)

This case illustrates what happen if the Courts DON'T take disciplinary action against mal-practicing solicitors.

FACT: In June 2009, Benjamin James Whelan, ID 150926, Deputy H. M. Coroner and Partner in FDC Law signed a further false declaration on a bill claiming £1,000's FDC Liar was NOT entitled to under the Law.  Whelan, fat with his Coroners salary cannot deny it - his signature is plain to see next to the RATES he was falsely claiming.  Nor does he have an excuse - he was sat at the back of the court taking notes when Wayman admitted HER false declaration and the "rules" were refreshed for all to hear.  Whelan cannot EVEN pretend he trusted Nigel Long - D J James had ALREADY said this of FDC Law's Costs Draughtsman...

"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."

Further Reading

FDC Law - losing clients since 2003 thanks to THIS web site.  A firm who cannot even protect their own reputation.  "Incompetent", "Woeful" (according to H H J Cardinal in 2005).  Negligent, arrogant, greedy and a veritable breeding ground of solicitors who sign false declarations.  AVOID.

Please Support Rick

Click Here to Sign the Petition

And Here

Latest FoI Request