December 2022

 When Admin Tried to Erase Truth, and I Refused to Disappear

They changed the logo. They changed the firm name. They changed the email addresses. And no one told me.

So critical case documents — including materials about disclosure, witness statements, and expert coordination — began landing in my junk folder.

Because Outlook thought they were strangers.

Because no one warned me.

And when I raised it?

They billed me for the merger admin.

I wasn’t unreachable.

They were unannounced.

And the cost — like always — landed on me.

Then Came the Statements.

Not New Ones. Not Clarifying Ones. Retraction Statements.

Packaged as “Addendums,” they weren’t about correction.

They were about redacting truth that had already been reviewed, signed, and exchanged.

They flagged my son’s paragraphs 58–61.

Not because they were inaccurate — but because they were too accurate.

They hit nerve.

They hit record.

They showed vulnerability they didn’t want reflected.

Then they came for mine —

Paragraphs 83–85, referencing Trading Standards.

Paragraph 86, where I asked lawful questions about consumer rights.

They said these were “professional accusations.”

They called them “misunderstood.”

Together, they asked me to take them back.

I said no.

“I’m not redacting the truth so you can settle this quietly.”

—Me, December 2022

Even with grief in one pocket and invoices in the other, I stood my ground.

Then Came the Timeline Pressure

Our signed statements had been with them since early November.

But I didn’t receive my “final” version until the evening of 5 December.

The exchange deadline? 6 December.

Less than 24 hours to confirm accuracy and lock a sworn Statement of Truth.

They disrupted the timeline.

Then made me wear the watch.

And Even Her Exit Was Dressed in Logistics

My solicitor contacted me again on 19 December—

Still pressuring us for Addendum Statements.

Still requesting final payments.

Still asking for signature, but not scrutiny.

As if our consent was a formality.

As if truth could be packaged away before the office shutdown.

But I remembered May.

Not the version where she stood for me — but the one where she drafted around it.

She did it while I was grieving.

While caring for my father.

While my son spiralled.

She’d polished the Statement — not to reflect facts, but to shield herself.

And now, she was doing it again.

She wasn’t overwhelmed.

She was experienced and strategic.

And she didn’t expect me to notice.

But I did.

So, no.

I wasn’t giving her a second stage to repackage pain as professionalism.

Let the Record Show:

• The merger buried communication
• The timeline buried urgency
• The solicitors tried to bury truth

And I stood —

Clear.

Refusing to disappear just because it made the paperwork simpler.  

Addendum

Strategic Deflection

 Who It Served and Why It Matters

Following the hearing on 16 May 2022, I was misled by my solicitor into signing a statement that contradicted my own documented evidence. The statement was presented as a procedural necessity, but its true function was to protect her courtroom narrative — specifically her claim that she had only been instructed for the hearing, despite clear evidence of her involvement dating back to March 2021.

Who It Served

The Solicitor

• The statement retroactively supported her misleading courtroom claim, shielding her from scrutiny over procedural misrepresentation and her role in expert engagement and cost decisions.

The Firm

• The firm avoided reputational and regulatory exposure by suppressing evidence of solicitor-led contradictions in billing, correspondence, and case preparation.

Courtroom Optics

• The Judge was led to believe the Claimant’s record was fragmented and self-managed. This reduced scrutiny of solicitor conduct and reframed consistent engagement as disorganised litigation.

Why It Matters

Truth Was Recast as Error

In December 2022, I was pressured to retract both my and my son’s Statements of Truth. The retraction was not proposed to correct factual error — it was designed to neutralise reputational discomfort. The paragraphs targeted weren’t inaccurate. They were too accurate.

Procedural Integrity Was Compromised

The hearing wasn’t just shaped by what was said — it was defined by what was deliberately left out. The Claimant’s financial and emotional harm was quietly dismissed. The solicitor’s role was diluted. And the record was softened to protect optics, not truth.

The Record Stands

Both statements remain truthful, evidence-based, and supported by correspondence, invoices, and expert replies. All documented evidence is available on request.

CPR 22 Breach – My Formal Position

It is my belief that both the solicitor and the opposing representative breached CPR 22.1 – Requirement for a Statement of Truth.

This breach is evidenced by:

• Unjustified pressure placed on me and my son to retract or amend signed witness statements that were factually supported, lawfully structured, and already exchanged
• Requests for retraction were not based on error, but on reputational discomfort — specifically targeting paragraphs that referenced Trading Standards, safeguarding concerns, and solicitor conduct
  • The solicitor’s failure to verify our statements before requesting retractions, undermining the legal foundation of CPR 22.1 which requires that a Statement of Truth reflect the signatory’s honest belief in its accuracy
• The opposing representative’s correspondence framed factual assertions as “professional accusations” and sought to neutralise them through procedural pressure, not legal rebuttal

Together, these actions constitute a clear breach of CPR 22.1, which protects the integrity of sworn statements and prohibits interference with truthful evidence.

Why I Refused

To Withdraw the Trading Standards Officer’s Statement

In correspondence with my MP’s office, I stated that I believed the opposing representative had spoken with someone at Trading Standards. This belief was based on instinct and context — not on evidence.

However, the officer from Trading Standards explicitly stated that no telephone call had taken place. The opposing representative, despite repeated opportunities, failed to provide the name, date, or any verifiable detail of the alleged conversation.

I was expected to withdraw the officer’s verified statement in favour of an unsubstantiated claim. I refused. My record is built on evidence, not assumption.

I remained open to proof. But as of December 2022, no such proof had been provided. The contradiction stood — and my instinct was right to flag that something was off.

What I Saw in the Solicitor’s December 2022 Emails

Reading back through those emails, I saw a procedural and ethical fault line I couldn’t fully name at the time — but I felt it. These weren’t just administrative exchanges. They revealed:

• Pressure on me and my son to retract truthful statements
• My own solicitor aligning with opposing counsel
• A complete failure to advocate for our evidence
• A dismissal of safeguarding concerns and court directions 

Here’s How It Unfolded

1. Pressure to Retract Allegations

We were repeatedly urged to remove references to bullying, harassment, and dishonesty — not because they were inaccurate, but because they were “serious” and might prevent us from relying on our statements in court.

She didn’t challenge the truth of what we said. She just wanted it gone. That’s not legal advice. That’s reputational shielding — and it undermines CPR 22.1.

2. Alignment with the Opposing Representative

She communicated directly with him, relayed his concerns to us, and even negotiated on his behalf.

She told us that if we retracted our statements, he wouldn’t file a Reply Statement. That wasn’t advocacy — it was procedural bargaining.

She accepted his version of the Trading Standards call without ever asking for my transcripts or verifying the evidence I had already gathered.

3. Dismissal of My Son’s Safeguarding Concerns

His paragraph 61 — about livestream access to our home — was treated as a “misunderstanding,” even though it was based on a real email.

He asked for a simple written assurance that remote access wouldn’t be arranged during the expert’s visit. She refused to ask for it.

She framed his concern as “incorrect,” even though it was grounded in court directions and lived experience. That wasn’t just dismissive — it was unsafe.

4. Failure to Request My Evidence

She knew I had transcripts and correspondence with Trading Standards. She never asked for them.

Instead, she accepted a self-authored Attendance Note and paraphrased account as sufficient — even though they contradicted the actual record.

She didn’t protect our evidence. She protected his narrative.

What This Reveals

She wasn’t acting in our best interests.

Her priority was minimising conflict, not protecting truth.

She treated our truthful, evidence-backed statements as liabilities — and treated unverified claims as acceptable.

Her conduct reflected a failure of duty —

To us as clients,

To the court,

And to the principles of safeguarding and procedural integrity. 

Closing Reflection – December 2022

They didn’t just redact paragraphs.

They rehearsed reputational shielding.

They didn’t just mislabel truth.

They rebranded it as risk.

And I didn’t just refuse to disappear.

I refused to let the record be rewritten.

December didn’t close the year.

It exposed the choreography.

And the Addendum?

It wasn’t a footnote.

It was the fault line.

The new year didn’t begin with relief.

It began with residue.

Pressure disguised as advice,

Truth treated as liability,

Safeguarding reframed as inconvenience.

January 2023 didn’t bring a clean slate.

It brought the consequences of everything they tried to bury.

The next page doesn’t just hold the new year.

It holds the reckoning.

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved