Note: 05/06/2008 - This is WAY out of date ... but I found it an interesting "snapshot in time" and also found it had the WRONG file permissions
Now we know MUCH more - check out these...
Most Visited - Leigh Vs Michelin Tyre
Regional Costs Judge D J R James of Aldershot on CPR 3.1(7) - Set Aside Powers
A LYING Costs Draughtsman - Nigel Long, Weston-Super-Mare - ALCD?
Elaine Pitman - A double-charging ILEX Member?
Or read on if you wish - it's harmless and WAY out of date :-)
The big news of course is that WAYMAN is now Ousted from FDC Liar... and FINALLY confessed on 07/03/2008
*** Note - Updated 30/12/2004 - the page below dates back to before Wayman was compelled to provide billing information. It reflects the position and information available at a time when Wayman was refusing to provide ANY information either to myself or to the Law Society. It is left "for the record"
Professional Misconduct & Breach of The CPR
Wayman went to extreme lengths to hide ALL costs information. Failure to provide this information before the hearing is deemed to be Professional Misconduct. It is in direct contradiction to Principle 17.03 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors, promulgated by the Law Society - rules which every solicitor is supposed to follow...
17.03 Agreeing costs with another party
When stipulating, as a term of any settlement or agreement between a client and another party, that costs should be paid by the other party, a solicitor should give the other party sufficient opportunity to agree those costs on an informed basis, or to apply for taxation (now assessment).
1. A solicitor should not use a client’s bargaining position to prevent agreement on costs being reached on a reasonably informed basis, nor must unfair advantage be taken of another party for the solicitor’s own benefit by overcharging. The solicitor should, if requested, offer the other party a sufficient breakdown of the calculation.
The entire guide may be accessed here - http://www.guide-on-line.lawsociety.org.uk
See also this letter from the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.
A Solicitors obligation to abide by the governing bodies Rules of Professional Conduct is underpinned by LAW. Section 42 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 - CLEARLY states that this overrides ALL other obligations - INCLUDING the obligations to their Client.
References to CPR 44 and CPD, s 13.5
In addition to the Rules of Professional Conduct, Wayman has also flouted the Civil Procedures Rules (CPR) and the Practice Directives (CPDs). All I have received from them to date is a two-line bill... here is the minimum they SHOULD have provided me with back in July 2003...
a) the number of hours to be claimed;
b) the hourly rate to be claimed;
c) the grade of the fee earner;
d) the amount and nature of any disbursement to be claimed, other than counsel's fee for appearing at the hearing;
e) the amount of solicitors' costs to be claimed for attending or appearing at the hearing;
f) the fees of counsel to be claimed in respect of the hearing (but see 13.34); and
g) any VAT to be claimed on these amounts.
This simple explanation was taken from here...
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/family_law/fbb/mf_13b.htm#intro - actually designed to help Judges to understand and apply the Court Rules. Of course, as a solicitor, Wayman has no excuse for "not knowing" the rules - it was her duty to assist the Court. Instead she chose to deceive both the Judge and myself. I have many letters which collectively show that Wayman's deceit has to have been premeditated. Actually the Judge simply hadn't read the CPD or these notes by the Judicial Studies Board - if he had then he would have been aware of CPD, s 13.6 and their non-disclosure over costs would have been highly relevant in deciding costs - including the cost of Full Assessment (taxation) made necessary by that non-disclosure. The Judge would seem to have a poor excuse - Wayman has none!
For your own peace of mind... Do NOT use this Firm...
The following is my opinion. If you want to see further proofs of what I base this upon, you will need to contact me.
It seems that Wayman is...
The saddest part... A solicitor is in a position of trust and should be beyond reproach. A solicitor-turned-criminal can abuse that trust, insinuating themselves upon our very Courts and leeching off the integrity of the majority. For me this makes the crime far worse.
Wayman is NOT a very good solicitor and probably never was. I have letters from her showing that she doesn't understand very basic tax documents. I have letters apologising for the loss of documents and other basic failures of competence. On every single occasion that the Court ordered her to prepare documentation, she was late delivering it. One important document, prepared by her, was so full of holes that a child could pull it to pieces. On the day of the Final Hearing their own Barrister was forced to apologise to the Court for a number of Wayman's failings. Her memory is appalling and she doesn't refer to her own previous records or correspondence.
Unfortunately, a solicitor can make incompetence pay. I will never know when Wayman made the transition from poor solicitor to appalling rogue. I will never know whether it was due to an inherent greed or simply a case of "getting away" with more and more, or some combination.
As stated these are my opinions based on my experience of this Firm and this Rogue. Do YOU really need to take the risk?
For your own peace of mind... Do NOT use this Firm... !!!