R's rogue lawyers to be imprisoned with each Chair of the Bar Council / BSB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CHANCERY DIVISION

B E T W E E N:

Dr A. Bijlani 

Claimant (“C”) 

-and-

John Bowers QC (D1) 

Elaine Banton (D2) 

Richard Leiper (D3) 

Weightmans (D4) 

Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (D5) 

Letter of Claim

1. C and D1-D3 are barristers. D4 are acting for D1-D3, and D5 are indemnifying D1-D3. 

2. In 2008 C brought an action in the London Central Employment Tribunal (“ET”) against key members of her Chambers at 4, New Square (“the 2008 ET claim”). On 28.08.08 C sought to instruct D1 to represent her, and D1 responded “pls also state the nature or the case”. After sending confidential information and telephone discussions with his clerk, D1’s clerk confirmed “Mr Bowers is happy to be instructed”. But thereafter, D1 emailed C on 26.06.09 “Thanks very much for thinking of mes but i am already booked for much of that time best of luck”. 

3. Within days of alleging he was double booked, D1 commenced acting against C, against her consent, in (actual or potential) conflict, and/or in breach of the cab rank rule, for which C claims £1 million in damages, and £15,000 per day he acted against her. Further, D1 was dishonest in his email of 26.06.09, evidenced by his diary miraculously clearing within days thereafter. In any event, the Bar Council’s Code of Conduct required D1 to approach C if his diary had suddenly cleared, and/or to at least seek C’s consent before attempting to act against her. 

 4. In 2009 D1 and D2 went on the record as acting for her Chambers, and from 2012 D2 was sacked, and replaced by D3. They made misleading and/or false statements of fact in the 2008 ET claim, including in the Counter Schedule, Replies to the RRA Questionnaire, and in written / oral submissions to the ET, EAT and/or Court of Appeal (CA). For example, they had, and have, knowledge (actual and/or deemed) that:

a. No Member appointed Lizzy Wiseman (“LW”) as Equal Opportunities Officer (“EOO”) from 2002 to 2005. 

b. There was no known EOO Member at C’s Chambers, before the 2008 ET claim. 

c. There was no EOO Member at C’s Chambers, in fact and/or in law, before the 2008 ET claim. 

d. No Member appointed Jeremy Stuart-Smith (“JSS”) as EOO at any stage before the 2008 ET claim. 

e. JSS was neither trained as EOO, nor did any work as EOO, before the 2008 ET claim. 

f. JSS was not known as EOO before the 2008 ET claim. 

g. JSS did not “formally” or otherwise handover the role as EOO in 2009. to either Nick Davidson QC (“NS”) or Clare Dixon (“CED”), and/or they had no knowledge he was their alleged predecessor as EOO, before the 2008 ET claim. 

h. C’s Chambers breached the mandatory requirements of the Bar Council to have a known EOO Member from 2005. 

i. On being chased by the Bar Council to comply with the mandatory requirements, C’s Chambers emailed the Bar Council on 22.02.06 that LW was the EOO. 

j. Their clients had committed perjury in 2009, and each day since, to date, and continuing. 

k. Their clients had concealed key evidence, including that outlined above, and “briefing notes” from 2008. 

l. Their clients had acted in Contempt of Court in 2009, and each day since, to date, and continuing. 

m. Their clients had breached, and are continuing to breach, the Bar’s Code of Conduct. 

n. They had breached, and are continuing to breach the Bar’s Code of Conduct, and their overriding duty to the Court, and the administration of justice. 

5. D1, D2 and D3 have continued to act in Contempt of Court and to breach their overriding duty to the Court, each day ever since, for which C claims £15,000 per day. 

6. In 2013, D1 withdrew from acting against C, at her instigation, in light of his ongoing overriding duty to the Court, and sought waiver of client-lawyer privilege to comply with his ongoing overriding duty. He has failed to disclose relevant evidence. 

7. D3 made further misleading and/or false statements to the EAT in 2012 and CA in 2013, including on the issues outlined above, for which C claims £5 million in damages. 

8. Further, D3 breached the Code of Conduct in failing to withdraw once he was aware he was to appear in front of Slade J in the EAT, and/or Elias LJ in the CA, with whom he has relevant relationships, for which C claims a further £10 million in damages. The Bar Council has clarified D3 is in breach of the Code of Conduct, as he had a duty to withdraw, and was professionally embarrassed. 

9. D3 has also failed to inform the Court of his relevant relationships, and that of each of his clients, including with Slade J in the EAT. In 2013, Slade J was humiliated into revealing her relevant relationships with D3’s clients, but has concealed the full nature and extent, and failed to reveal her relationship with D3. 

10. John Hendy QC has confirmed to C that Members of C’s Chambers, past and present, are unable to obtain effective legal representation, unless they admit their fraud from 2009, outlined above, and that had he been in D3’s position from 2012 he would have sought advice from the Bar Council on the issue of relevant relationships too. 

11. In 2013 C brought a second action against all members of her Chambers, and key past members (“the 2013 ET claim”). Bernard Livesey QC (“BL”) has admitted “briefing notes” have been concealed from C since 2008. His Head of Chambers, Martin Spencer QC, has advised the fraud of C’s Chambers (from 2005 on the Bar Council, and 2009 from the courts) is “clear”, that the briefing notes cannot be privileged from C and advised BL to disclose them to C, with or without seeking independent legal advice. BL has acted in Contempt of his Head of Chambers advice, and has failed to disclose the breifing notes (or to seek independent advice), but has admitted to C in the presence of his Head of Chambers, that the ongoing fraud of her Chambers is clear, and iterated he will attend court when they are sentenced and wave them off. 

12. D3 has continued to act against C, and breach his overriding duty to the Court, including on the issues outlined above. 

13. D1 to D3 have failed to respond to Equality Act Questionnaires, and adverse inferences may readily be made against them. 

14. D4 is representing D1 to D3 in breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, and aiding unlawful acts. D4 has the knowledge (actual and/or deemed) outlined above, and/or failing to make due enquiry each day since. 

15. D5 is insuring D1 to D3 in breach of the rules, as D1 to D3 are aiding unlawful acts and acting in breach of the Code of Conduct. D5 has the knowledge (actual and/or deemed) outlined above, and/or failing to make due enquiry each day since. 

16. Each D are committing fraud on C, and on the administration of justice, for which C claims £10 million in damages from each D. 

17. Each D have failed to reveal all relevant documents in breach of the pre-action protocol, and C re-applies under the DPA and under the pre-action protocol. 

18. C applies to mediate or otherwise settle her £multi-million claims against each D. 

Dated 25.01.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 

CHANCERY DIVISION 

B E T W E E N: 

Dr A. Bijlani 

Claimant (“C”) 

-and-

Farrer & Co (D1) 

Davies Arnold Cooper (DAC Beachcrofts) (D2) 

DWF solicitors (D3) 

Collyer Bristow (D4) 

Penningtons (D5) 

Defendants (“D”) 

Letter of Claim 

1. C is a barrister. D are firms of solicitors, and they have actual and/or constructive knowledge of the fraud against C, outlined below. 

2. In 2008 C brought an action in the London Central Employment Tribunal (“ET”) against her Chambers at 4, New Square (“the 2008 ET claim”). In 2007 C instructed D1 to represent her and settle the claim. On 05.11.07, C and her brother-in-law attended D1’s offices for a conference with the Head of Employment partner, as a result of which D1 received and discussed C’s confidential information. 

3. Thereafter, D1 commenced acting for her Chambers against C in breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, against her consent, in (actual or potential) conflict, for which C claims £5 million in damages, and £15,000 per day they have acted against her. D1 failed to seek C’s consent before attempting to act against her, and despite her requests and further meeting, have refused to withdraw from acting against her, and for the reasons outlined below, have continued to abet, and aid, unlawful acts against her. 

4. In 2009 Nathan Donaldson of D2, and then D3, went on the record as acting for her Chambers. D made misleading and/or false statements of fact in the 2008 ET claim, including in the Counter Schedule, Replies to the RRA Questionnaire, and in written / oral submissions to the ET, EAT and/or Court of Appeal (CA), via their Counsel, or otherwise. For example, they had, and have, knowledge (actual and/or deemed) that: 

a. No Member appointed Lizzy Wiseman (“LW”) as Equal Opportunities Officer (“EOO”) from 2002 to 2005. 

b. There was no known EOO Member at C’s Chambers, before the 2008 ET claim. 

c. There was no EOO Member at C’s Chambers, in fact and/or in law, before the 2008 ET claim. 

d. No Member appointed Jeremy Stuart-Smith (“JSS”) as EOO at any stage before the 2008 ET claim. 

e. JSS was neither trained as EOO, nor did any work as EOO, before the 2008 ET claim. 

f. JSS was not known as EOO before the 2008 ET claim. 

g. JSS did not “formally” or otherwise handover the role as EOO in 2009. to either Nick Davidson QC (“NS”) or Clare Dixon (“CED”), and/or they had no knowledge he was their alleged predecessor as EOO, before the 2008 ET claim. 

h. C’s Chambers breached the mandatory requirements of the Bar Council to have a known EOO Member from 2005. 

i. On being chased by the Bar Council to comply with the mandatory requirements, C’s Chambers emailed the Bar Council on 22.02.06 that LW was the EOO. 

j. Their clients had committed perjury in 2009, and each day since, to date, and continuing. 

k. Their clients had concealed key evidence, including that outlined above, and “briefing notes” from 2008. 

l. Their clients had acted in Contempt of Court in 2009, and each day since, to date, and continuing. 

m. Their clients had breached, and are continuing to breach, the Bar’s Code of Conduct. 

n. They had breached, and are continuing to breach the Solicitors Code of Conduct, and their overriding duty to the Court, and the administration of justice. 

5. In 2011 at C’s requests, D2 disclosed key documents which had been concealed by her Chambers, including on the issues outlined above. A key partner at D2 has since moved to D5. D5 have since alleged they are conflicted from representing C, even though a partner at D5 had emails and conferences with C (and/or her Counsel) from 2009 to 2014, and went on the record as representing C at a hearing in 2009. 

6. In 2013, D3 was sacked and/or withdrew from acting against C, at her instigation, in light of the ongoing overriding duty to the Court, and may have sought waiver of client-lawyer privilege to comply with the ongoing overriding duty. Nathan Donaldson, previously of D2 and then D3, moved to D4 in 2013. Thereafter, C’s Chambers and key past members, have been represented by D1. D has failed to disclose relevant evidence. 

7. D made further misleading and/or false statements to the EAT in 2012 and CA in 2013, via their Counsel, Richard Leiper (“RL”), including on the issues outlined above, for which C claims £5 million in damages. Further, D breached the Code of Conduct in failing to cease instructions to RL, once aware he was to appear in front of Slade J in the EAT, and/or Elias LJ in the CA, with whom he has relevant relationships, for which C claims a further £10 million in damages. The Bar Council has clarified RL is in breach of the Code of Conduct, as he had a duty to withdraw, and was professionally embarrassed. 

8. D has also failed to inform C and/or the Court of RL’s relevant relationships, and that of their clients, including with Slade J in the EAT, despite C’s requests. In 2013, Slade J was humiliated into revealing relevant relationships with D’s clients, but has concealed the full nature and extent, and failed to reveal her relationship with RL. 

 9. In 2013 John Hendy QC has confirmed to C that Members of C’s Chambers, past and present, are unable to obtain effective legal representation, unless they admit their fraud from 2009, outlined above, and that had he been in RL’s position from 2012 he would have sought advice from the Bar Council on the issue of relevant relationships too. 

10. Despite requests, each D have failed to reveal their knowledge of the ongoing fraud against C, including on the issues outlined above, or to withdraw from acting against her. 

11. D have continued to act in Contempt of Court and to breach their overriding duty to the Court, each day ever since, for which C claims £15,000 per day. 

12. In 2013 C brought a second action against all members of her Chambers, and key past members (“the 2013 ET claim”). A past member, Bernard Livesey QC (“BL”) has admitted “briefing notes” have been concealed from C since 2008. His current Head of Chambers, Martin Spencer QC, has advised the fraud of C’s Chambers (from 2005 on the Bar Council, and 2009 from the courts) is “clear”, that the briefing notes cannot be privileged from C and advised BL to disclose them to C, with or without seeking independent legal advice. BL has acted in Contempt of his Head of Chambers advice, and has failed to disclose the briefing notes (or to seek independent advice), but has admitted to C in the presence of his Head of Chambers, that the ongoing fraud of her Chambers is clear, and iterated he will attend court when they are sentenced and wave them off. 

13. D1 has continued to act against C, and breach their overriding duty to the Court, including on the issues outlined above. D1 is not representing BL. 

14. D have failed to respond to Equality Act Questionnaries, and adverse inferences may readily be made against them. 

15. Each D are commiting fraud on C, and on the administration of justice, for which C claims £10 million in damages from each D. Each D are re-invited to reveal their knowledge of the ongoing fraud against C, in light of their overriding duty. 

16. Each D have failed to reveal all relevant documents in breach of the pre-action protocol, and C re-applies under the DPA and under the pre-action protocol. 17. C applies to mediate or otherwise settle her £multi-million claims against each D. 

Dated 26.02.15.