From Trial to Regulator
The Evidence Was Given. The Silence Was Chosen.
The trial did not mark the end of harm.
It marked the beginning of a new contradiction — one where solicitor conduct, including bundle manipulation, gatekeeping, and post-trial distortion, was presented to regulators and still dismissed.
What follows is not a shift in topic.
It is a shift in responsibility.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman were given this record.
They chose not to act.
This capsule documents their failure — not as a grievance, but as a forensic contradiction.
July 2023 Capsule Index
- I Funded the Trial
- Annex – Trial Bundle Manipulation and Procedural Exclusion
- Trial & Post – August 2023
- Bridge Paragraph (above)
- Dual Accountability Capsule – SRA & LO Re-engagement
- Law Society Shield Capsule
- Closing Capsule – The Record Is Not Yet Closed
Jurisdictional Clarification: Why August Matters
The events documented in August 2023 — procedural failures, judicial bias, and post-trial distortion — fall outside the formal review scope of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman.
However, they are included here to provide the necessary forensic context:
- They demonstrate the downstream impact of prior solicitor conduct, including procedural omissions, misrepresentation of authority, and record management failures
- They illuminate how solicitor-led distortion shaped litigation posture, bundle integrity, and enforcement prospects
- They reveal post-trial inconsistencies — particularly regarding judgment registration and solicitor communications — that directly link to earlier regulatory breaches
- These entries are not submitted for adjudication but for contextual integrity
Understanding the final outcome — including judicial leniency, misregistered orders, and narrative manipulation — requires an unbroken chain of evidence.
August is that chain’s final link.
Truth Log Entry – January 2021 Onward
Solicitor-Led Abuse of CPR 35.6 and Regulatory Failure
Date Range: January 2021 – May 2022
Summary of Events
In January 2021, the solicitor acting for the Defence began correspondence that would later evolve into formal CPR Part 35 questions — culminating in a letter dated 9 April 2021.
- He asserted that I was liable for my expert’s fees in answering the Defence’s questions.
- He invoked procedural language to deflect financial responsibility. - From June 2021 onward, the solicitor representing me failed to challenge this assertion and instead:
- Redrafted letters confirming my liability Requested payments on account to assist my expert Facilitated the Defence’s procedural deflection
On 16 May 2022, the Judge clarified
- “The person who asks the question should pay the expert for responding. So that expense should not fall at the feet of the claimants.”
- Despite this, neither solicitor offered reimbursement, nor did they acknowledge their misapplication of CPR 35.6.2.
Abuse of Procedure and Regulatory Silence
CPR 35.6.2 is clear: the party asking the questions pays the expert’s fees.
Both solicitors — seasoned professionals — either misunderstood or strategically misused this rule.
Their actions resulted in:
- Financial harm to the Claimant
- Procedural distortion of cost liability
- Misleading representations in court and correspondence
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal Ombudsman (LO) failed to act, despite:
- Clear documentary evidence
- Judicial correction on record
- Misleading representations in court and correspondence
Breaches of SRA Principles:
- Principle 1: Uphold the rule of law
- Principle 4: Act with honesty
- Principle 5: Act with integrity
- Principle 7: Act in the best interests of each client
The Law Society: Referenced, Not Responsible
In a complaint response dated 26 March 2025, a senior solicitor stated:
“Our invoices are prepared in accordance with the Law Society Standard.”
This phrase was not supported by documentation, nor was it clarified.
It was used to imply institutional endorsement of billing practices and procedural conduct — without the Law Society ever being involved in the case.
What the Law Society Is — and Isn’t
- The Law Society is a representative body, not a regulator
- It does not adjudicate complaints, investigate solicitor conduct, or endorse individual invoices
- It does not issue binding standards for billing or procedural engagement
What This Reference Achieved
- It deflected scrutiny by invoking institutional authority without substance
- It discouraged challenge, banking on public unfamiliarity with regulatory boundaries
- It reframed the complaint, suggesting compliance with a “standard” that does not exist in the context claimed
Why This Matters
- The Law Society was never contacted, never involved, and never provided any statement regarding this case
- Its name was used strategically, not substantively — to shield the firm from accountability
- This tactic mirrors broader patterns documented in this dossier: institutional language used to obscure, not clarify
This capsule is not a complaint against the Law Society.
It is a record of how its name was used — without consent, context, or authority — to imply legitimacy where none had been earned.
The Law Society did not fail to act.
It was never asked to.
But its name was used to protect those who did.
The Law Society didn’t fail to act. It was never asked to.
But its name was used to protect those who did.
What follows is not a shift in harm. It’s a shift in structure.
A capsule that untangles how two regulatory bodies, both backed by the legal sector, differ in scope, access, and accountability.
It reveals how financial architecture enables silence, shields misconduct, and leaves the public navigating a system designed to defer, deflect, and deny.
Next
Dual Accountability Capsule
SRA & Legal Ombudsman (August 2025)
Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved
| Visitor Counter: | |||||||
 |  |  |  | |  | ||