July 2023

Paid for Justice. My Legal Adviser Locked Me Out

I Built the Trial. She Overcharged Me, Then Framed Me as a Guest.

The courtroom was ready. The record was not.

I Built the Trial. She Overcharged Me, Then Framed Me as a Guest.

By July, I had paid for everything: the expert, the barrister, the bundles.

I had followed every procedural step, met every deadline, and confirmed every instruction.

The trial was scheduled. The bundles were being prepared.

And yet, I was still being spoken to as if I were a witness — not the Claimant.

My solicitor initially confirmed that bundles were being prepared “for all parties.”

But in the same breath, she wrote that “a copy of the bundle will be placed on the witness stand for my use.”

As if I were being granted access.

As if I hadn’t paid for the entire process.

I didn’t imagine that contradiction.

I documented it.

I Paid. I Prepared. I Was Still Positioned Outside

• I confirmed payment of the barrister’s trial fee — £3,000, paid promptly and without hesitation
•  I declined solicitor attendance at the hearing — not to cut corners, but because I knew who had done the work
• I reviewed the draft bundle line by line — flagging missing WhatsApp evidence, challenging the inclusion of flawed defence documents, and insisting that the Defence’s witness statement be included
•  I raised the issue of bankruptcy threats — not to delay proceedings, but to protect the trial from disruption

My solicitor pushed back. I held the line.

This was my case — and I wasn’t about to let it be derailed by procedural bluffing. 

The Offers Were Filed. The Truth Was Clear

The record of offers tells its own story — one of imbalance, assumption, and unilateral decision-making.

• First offer: £14,500, filed in August 2022 — rejected by the Defence solicitor, not his client
• Second offer: £12,500, filed by me on 7 June 2023 — based on expert advice — rejected again
• Third offer: £9,800, filed later as a fallback — also rejected

The only formal offer made by the Defence:

• £8,000 — filed in 2021 and reduced by counterclaim to just £3,200

Further Offer” Contradiction

In July 2023, the curtain slipped.

That “further offer” the Defendant had referenced for weeks?

It never existed.

He called that “disappointing.”

I called it what it was: a solicitor steering settlement decisions alone — repeatedly stating, “I haven’t conferred with my client, but I’m sure he’ll agree.”

And then, in July, he admitted it:

The “further offer” had never been sent.

Disappointing?

I’d already documented it as procedural misrepresentation.

The Court Was Ready. I Still Had to Ask

Two days before trial, the hearing time changed. I confirmed my attendance.

I even asked whether a 9:45 arrival was sufficient for a 10:30 start.

I shouldn’t have had to ask — but I wasn’t going to give anyone room to say I hadn’t shown up prepared.

My solicitor confirmed the barrister had been briefed. The Statement of 

Costs was served. The bundles were delivered.

And yet, I was told again:

“A copy will be placed on the witness stand for your use.”

I didn’t need permission.

I needed parity.  

What July Really Showed

They prepared for trial.

I prepared for truth.

They filed bundles.

I built them.

They assumed I’d be grateful for access.

I reminded them I’d already paid for it.

This wasn’t about courtesy.

It was about standing.

And I stood — every step of the way.

Not beside the record. Within it.

Gatekeeping the Barrister: July 2023 Email Trail

The Bundle That Wasn’t Mine

Despite my direct funding of the barrister and my role as Claimant, my solicitor continued to mediate access — framing the conference as contingent on her coordination.

The quote for fees was still pending, yet she assumed authority to proceed, reinforcing her positioning as procedural gatekeeper.

I wasn’t asking for access. I owed it.

I wasn’t requesting permission. I was asserting my role.

1. The Shifting Explanations

• 14 July 2023:

“I need to prepare five separate copies of the Bundle – one for us, one for our Barrister, one for the Judge, one for the Witness box and one for the Defendant.” → That’s five — and “us” clearly included me.

• 18 July at 14:59:

“I will arrange for a further two copies… one for our Barrister and one for the Defendant.” → No mention of me.

• 19 July at 09:58:

“One of the two copies lodged with the Court will be placed in the Witness Box for use of yourself and the other witnesses…”→ I went from being counted, to being omitted, to being framed as a witness.

But I wasn’t a witness.

I was the Claimant — the one who built that very bundle.

2. The Legal Entitlement

There’s no ambiguity here:

• I was a named party to proceedings
• I had instructed counsel, but not surrendered my procedural rights
• The Civil Procedure Rules entitle all parties to a full copy of the bundle for review and preparation

My solicitor’s justification — that legal representation negated that right — was not just procedurally incorrect.

It was fundamentally unfair.

3. Implications for Trial Fairness

Because I didn’t receive a bundle:

• I couldn’t verify whether my corrections were included
• I couldn’t confirm that the Defence’s witness statement — which I had to request — was actually present
• I had to rely on third-party assurances that what I built had been properly filed

At the time, I had no way of knowing what had been left out.

I discovered it only months later — after the trial, when I brought the witness bundle home.

And I saw what wasn’t there.

4. Procedural Marginalisation — A Pattern

This wasn’t an isolated oversight. It was part of a structure:

• I was asked to approve drafts, but not given final materials
• I was included in funding, but excluded from function
• I was positioned as a contributor — but treated like a bystander

In the story of July, that tone solidified: not quite inside, not quite outside — just always almost.

What This Entry Proves

That access can be quietly denied without ever saying “no”

That roles can be rewritten — not in rulings, but in wording

And that even at the threshold of justice, some of us are still expected to wait outside

The court may not want to see it.

But now? The file will.  

July didn’t end with bundles. It ended with positioning.

 I had funded the trial.

Built the record, and followed every procedural step. 

Yet I was still framed as a guest.

Granted access, not entitled to it.

The trial was scheduled for August.

 But the real hearing had already begun.

In the wording, the omissions, and the quiet denial of parity.

What came next wasn’t just a trial.

It was a test of whether the record I built would be allowed to stand.

It was clear the Judge had already decided.

And ensured maximum disruption—not to assess the case or the court,

To protect the defendant 

And to ensure my case would not be allowed to stand.

Not because it lacked merit.

But because it held too much truth.

It felt, unmistakably, as though the Judge had been brought in not to assess the case, but to protect the Defendant—and to cause me as much harm as the system would allow.

This isn’t conjecture. It’s based on the Judge’s own statements, omissions, and procedural choices—each documented, each contradiction-resistant.”

The Judge’s final words made it unmistakable.

“I personally believe the Defendant only left behind snagging work.”

A phrase that erased expert findings

Reframed harm as inconvenience. 

Confirmed what the trial had already shown

This wasn’t impartiality. It was protection.

And for victims of serious fraud, that kind of protection isn’t just unfair.

It’s extremely dangerous.

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