Head 2 - Nigel Long misled District Judge Brookes

Lying by Omission / Lying by Misleading

[Previous Page] [Home] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]

Official, Open and Public Complaint to the ALCD

Key: Original Head in blue bold italic.  What Nigel Long says red bold italic.  My spoke black.

Original head in full here local copy here

Second Head of Complaint

  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.
  1. I knew there was no client care letter.

With reference to Nigel Long's statement (reference "e") we see that he ALSO knew that there was no up-front notification of costs, no notification of rate increase (please bear in mind the last paragraph in No. 7 of Longs statement "e" - he KNEW this would affect rates charged) - indeed, he HAD the whole file... It MUST follow that Long KNEW that FDC Law had "completely ignored the code" - EXACTLY as District Judge James found in paragraph 80 of his judgement ("f").

Read the transcript - Nigel Long HID ALL of these FACTS from District Judge Brookes (and from me).  NOWHERE does Long even HINT at the TRUTH.  Material and Persistent Breaches of the Code are Inadequate Professional Service (IPS) - important in determining the RATE and overall COSTS.  This is Lying by Omission.  We KNOW that he ALSO lied about it to District Judge James - see Head 1 - he tried to pretend that District Judge Brookes was in the know when clearly he wasn't - WHY?

NOWHERE does Nigel Long indicate to the judge that there was ANYTHING amiss with with the contract or the proper notification of costs to the Client.

  1. 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.

  1. The bill at page 3 reads "hourly rates claimed are...." Had there been a client care letter this sentence would have read "hourly rates were agreed as follows...." I did not present the bill as if hourly rates had been agreed. Please also see mention of hourly rates on pages 14, 17 and 18 of the transcript of the hearing.

Nigel Long's attitude to lying appears to be that of a child.  He seems to be claiming that one word "claimed" instead of ""agreed" lets him off the hook.  One inconspicuous word in a 20 page bill.  No mention ANYWHERE in the transcript (118 pages - many HOURS) that the "claim" was NOT also "agreed".

Please READ pages 14 through 18.  In ALL of the debate about hourly rate there is not one mention of the TRUTH - i.e. that the rate claimed had NEVER been agreed (as is the norm.) - Indeed, the Client was not even made AWARE of the hourly rate Long was claiming in his bill until DECEMBER 2005 - a whole YEAR later.  Almost 5 years later rates were capped by a later contract to £145/hr (see Head 5) - clearly the rates Long was using were extortionately high - MUCH higher than reality - and Long KNEW this.  This is BOTH Lying by Omission AND Misleading - using the word "claimed" and not failing to correct the WRONG assumptions about it.

  1. 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.

  1. I did not persuade Patricia Wayman to do anything.

Read Long's statement - ("e") paragraph 8.  He certainly discussed it with her in October 2004.  Wayman (and Long) clearly KNEW that her Forms H (estimates) had been based on £80/hr, that she had included her client's OTHER costs in that bill (judgement - paragraphs 71 and 72) exactly as the "unfortunate manuscript heading" stated.  She ALSO knew that she had misled His Honour Judge Barclay about this "heading" AND refused to provide information when the Law Society asked her to in January 2004.  BOTH knew that there was no Client Care Letter, no other form of contract, no written retainer whatsoever and that FDC Liar had "totally ignored the code"

BOTH also KNEW that it was Wayman and not Long that retained overall responsibility for the bill.

SOMETHING persuaded her - was it Long with his massive bill?  (Fiction: Did her greedy little eyes light up "Oh Nigel, can you really get me all THIS?  Wow! you are so clever - let me give you a Lewinski!").  It is certain that SOMETHING persuaded Wayman - I suggest (at very least) that Nigel Long and his massive bill were probably instrumental in this.  Was this little get-together ALSO conspiracy to commit criminal fraud?  I doubt it can ever be proved - so I have to accept that (of this at least) both are innocent - that's the Law - but hey, civil law ... is it "more likely than not"?  No! I guess the ALCD won't conclude that, either.  Ok - I guess the Monkey gets off this one scott-free, regardless of the truth.  It is the Organ Grinder that must be made to pay.

  1. 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".

  1. It is not correct for Mr Poultney to say that the only charge rate agreed between FDC Law and their client was £80.00 per hour; I did maintain that the hourly rates of £155.00 and £165.00 were reasonable.

OK - I challenge Nigel Long to submit ANY evidence of a charging rate OTHER than £80.00/hr in support of his statement above.  There is NONE.

The rate of £80 is reflected in all THREE of the Forms H - and Long MUST have known this.  The "time ledger" attached to his "statement" (e) proves it.  Note in Paragraph 6 of his statement he says "...similar to the one attached as exhibit 2".  Can this man EVER stop lying?  "Exhibit 2" was printed in November 2007... and yet... Change the RATE to £80.00/hr, add in the early costs (known exactly and ALSO at £80/hr) and the figures match EXACTLY the Final Form H - (see conclusion of D J James in Paragraph 72 of his judgement)

£80 / hr is the ONLY agreed rate.  FDC Law regarded it as a reasonable rate by raising the bill on 8th June 2004 in this amount.  I was the agreed rate as evidenced by the fact that the client paid the bill  - and this was brought to Long's attention just before the hearing on 6th December.  That bill is the subject of the judgement (paragraphs 44 and 45 and elsewhere).  That Nigel Long received this bill only three days before the hearing is evidenced in the fax header here which was used to send that bill to Nigel Long on 3rd December 2004.

Now scan the transcript for all you are worth.  Not a single mention of this in ALL the debates about hourly rate.  Once again Nigel Long Lied by Omission.  He knowingly withheld vital information the judge needed.  He can't possibly have "forgotten" (in 3 days? in an "unusual" case? - no contract, estimates "out" by 530%)

  1. 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. 

  1. I do not know to which letter Mr Poultney is referring

Even you are not THAT thick, Nigel!  The letter is referred to in paragraph 44 of the judgement and elsewhere.  It was in the "leaked documents" that Nigel Long HIMSELF gave to me - see Head 4.  It is in his Statement "Exhibit 1" - dated 15/10/2003 - so he definitely had this letter before the hearing - he has sworn his statement.  It was pivotal to the case.  How can he pretend he doesn't know which (there was only ONE) letter?  Liar!

Ok... now scan the transcript (again).  NOWHERE does Long mention it.  Lying by Omission - again!  At page 92 of the transcript District Judge Brookes asks the Liar if what can be charged is restricted by certificate.  An ideal opportunity for Nigel Long to say "No, but there was a letter dated 15th October 2003 in which FDC Law told their Client that her liability to them was limited to the costs ordered by District Judge Rutherford... and this was the only agreement as to total costs, ever" - Nigel Long had a DUTY to do it, but failed.  Why... because then the Judge would have been bound to ask why Wayman had signed the certificate regarding the Indemnity Principle in such circumstances.  The WHOLE thing smacks of conspiracy between Nigel Long and Patricia Wayman - to defraud ME!.  And Nigel Long fucked-up royally when he "leaked" those documents... even Wayman had to throw herself on the mercy of District Judge James.  I wonder what the court of Appeal will say about all of this?

Is THIS acceptable behaviour from a Fellow of The Accociation of Law Costs Draughtsman ... in a family case?

  1. 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.
  1. I did not lie to the court (in December 2004) as to the reason for the discrepancy between Form H of July 2003 and the Bill of October 2004.

Bollocks Nigel!  Look at page 40 of the transcript (NB - read 39 to see where we are at).  Note that this is a LONG time after the judge has decide the RATE that should apply.  Nigel Long steps in and offers a "reason" for the HUGE discrepancy between the bill and the estimates (see Leigh Vs Michelin).  He says the TIMES are estimated... what he omits is the MAIN reason - i.e. that the Forms H were based on £80/hr while the bill was based on a claimed (but not agreed) rate of £155 and £165/hr.  Lying by Omission.  The little ****-**** misled the judge completely.  His Honour Judge Cardinal read the transcript later.  Nigel Long's LIES also misled HIM too.

  1. 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?
  1. I do not fully understand this paragraph but I insist that I have told no lies.

Can we yet conclude that Nigel Long IS a LIAR of the worst kind?

Now turn to and read pages 97 to 100 of the transcript.  District Judge Brookes (the former senior partner of local firm Batt Broadbent) had decided to award the senior partner of local firm FDC Law 150% of their estimate - £7,500 against £5,000.  Nigel Long pipes up and persuades the judge that the "estimate was £6,000.  It is clear the judge was not firing on all cylinders as he THEN went on to award the solicitors 150% of their disbursements - something nobody is entitled to... and a sum the judge had ALREADY taxed DOWN.  Of course, Nigel Long had a DUTY to assist the judge - instead he preferred to mislead him.

Now turn to paragraph 72 of the judgement of District Judge James.  The figure of £6,187.50 INCLUDED her clients OTHER costs - the "heading" was put there because it DID!  Nigel Long KNEW that these other costs were £2,101.26 (inc. VAT) - this was FRESH in his mind - see paragraph 4 above.  He knew that the REAL size of the "estimate" was £4,086.24 including disbursements and VAT.  Knowing this he tricked D J Brookes into awarding approximately estimate PLUS 125% (225%).

Of course Long also knew about Leigh Vs Michelin (and Wong Vs Vizards - estimates + 15%) but he said nothing.

Lying little shit!

Ok, ALCD... I will add some documents and links.  There are some things I probably can't publish here.  What else do you need from me?  Name it!  I will either add it here or, if unsuitable, I will send you a copy by private email.  Your call! YOU say!  I just know that you will bend every effort to doing this properly.

Ok, I appreciate that many (maybe most) costs draughtsmen (and women) often "sail fairly close to the wind" in carring out their "work" in court... but surely there are limits?  Is Nigel Longs behaviour acceptable?  If you think it IS then I suggest there is a serious problem with "costs draughtsmen" as a whole... something maybe that Parliament needs to address?  The ball is in your court, really... but it may not stay there.

Many Thanks... Spenser Poultney 21/07/2008 

PS - the spellchecker likes costs draughtsman, draughtswoman but not draughtsmen ... but doesn't mind draughtswomen - should you sue Microsoft?  Just a thought. :-)

This page may grow - depends what else Nigel Long has to say and what the ALCD find.  All for now - last update 21/07/2008.

Original Head of Complaint

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 creeps (I mean) Members 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"?

The ALCD Rules - from here ... http://alcd.org.uk/conduct.php 

The Member as an advocate
36. Any Member who appears before a court or other arbiter whilst carrying out his instructions has an overriding duty not to deceive or mislead the court or other arbiter.

A costs draughtsman to avoid "at all costs" - Nigel Long, The Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare

Whatever you do I suggest you avoid FDC Law and Nigel Long like the plague.

FDC Law's MAJOR Inadequate Professional Service (opens new window)

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

[Previous Page] [Home] [Top] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]