Head 4 - Nigel Long breached client confidentaility (for his own gain)
[Previous Page] [Home] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]
Official, Open and Public Complaint to the ALCD
Nigel Long's response dated 7th July 2008 - received today (19/07/08) (OCR)
Key: What Nigel Long says red bold italic my spoke black - original head here local copy here
Fourth Head of Complaint
I do not understand this complaint either.
How so? Incredible! I suppose that Nigel Long prefers to feign lack of understanding rather than indulge in yet another outright lie? Well, surely "pretending" IS another lie? Ok... let's clarify and add the evidence....
On 25th April 2007 I swore an affidavit. It will appear here once I have had a chance to prepare it (scan, remove FDC Law's Client's name and the case number). This affidavit was reaffirmed under oath on 07/03/2008 and is referred to in paragraph 37 of the judgement Nigel Long refers to as "f". The affidavit and the "leaked documents" are mentioned elsewhere in the judgement too.
Paragraph 14 of my affidavit reads...
"In late July 2006 an employee of FDC Law lent me documents comprising 24 pages. I was given 40 minutes in which to photocopy the documents before returning them. It is believed that these are the ONLY documents that FDC Law provided to Xxx. Xxxxxxxx in relation to their costs and bill. Amongst those documents is damning evidence."
The person who gave me those documents was Nigel Long - as I am sure he well remembers.
Paragraph 22 of the same affidavit says "According to the Solicitor’s Act 1974, FDC Law’s entitlement to Interest stems only from a "contentious business agreement" which MUST be in writing. According to Nigel Long (FDC Law’s costs draughtsman) there was no such written agreement." - I am equally certain that Nigel Long recalls imparting this information too.
Paragraph 21 of the affidavit says "FDC Law has long been aware of the "leaked" documents that I now hold but has failed to offer any explanation or comment." - I do NOT believe they knew WHO had given me these documents.
I deliberately did NOT mention WHO had leaked the documents because, as I said in the "Fourth Head" below, "At the time I genuinely believed he (Long) thought that FDC Liar had deceived HIM" - for me Long's willingness to let me see (and photocopy) those documents was proof that he genuinely believed that FDC Liar had deceived him. One could of course now speculate that Nigel Long anticipated my reaction and was really trying to drum up some "extra business" for FDC Liar and himself. Idle speculation? What we can be CERTAIN of is that when I DID apply, using the leaked documents, Nigel Long jumped upon the band-wagon - extra "business" for him of £3013.88 - see Head 1 Squabble
OK - so were Nigel Long's actions ALSO unlawful?
I certainly did NOT need to persuade Long in any way. He just offered them to me and (as stated in my affidavit) gave me 40 minutes to photocopy them. District Judge James, however, seems to take a dim view of ME over this - see Paragraph 14 of his judgement (Long identifies as "f") ...
"Mr Poultney was not going to lie down. He continued to dig for information to try to prove that the solicitors had acted improperly. Somehow it seems he managed to persuade an employee of Xxx Xxxxxxxx's solicitors to provide him with documents from her file in clear breach of privilege. No point was made on behalf of Xxx Xxxxxxxx as to the admissibility of those documents despite their privileged nature and the underhand and potentially unlawful way in which they were obtained. Among those documents were a letter addressed to Xxx Xxxxxxxx dated 15th October 2003 and a bill dated 8th June 2004. Mr Poultney thought that he struck gold. He believed that those two documents were evidence of a clear breach of the indemnity principle."
There were of course OTHER documents - 24 pages in fact as stated in my affidavit - most of the others now appear annexed to Nigel Long's statement (Long's ID "e")
Is that enough to "jog" Nigel Long's memory? Is that enough for the ALCD to decide this point? What ELSE do you need, Oh Great and Mighty ALCD? Should Nigel Long be invited to "reply" again to this point, perhaps?
Over to you Oh Golden Champions of ethical behaviour amongst the "Fellows" of the Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen.
This page may grow - depends what else Nigel Long has to say and what the ALCD find. All for now - last update 20/07/2008.
Nigel Long breached Client confidentiality for his own gain. It bothers me less than it does FDC Law, but surely it's still misconduct? At the time I genuinely believed he (Long) thought that FDC Liar had deceived HIM - and duly removed his name from the Leigh Page (most hits) because he found it "embarrassing". Well, now it WILL be embarrassing for him ... it seems the Lying-Long was after another £1155.00 plus VAT and (get this) a "witness fee" (for LYING to the Regional Costs Judge) of £810.00 + VAT - I wonder if D J James will think these "costs" were "reasonably incurred"? Did someone shout "Wasted Costs Order"? .... they WILL be. (PS do YOU question WHY FDC Law NEEDED a witness to mislead the Court?)
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]