Home > Uncategorized > Davenport Lyons Solicitors: The FULL SDT Hearing published

Davenport Lyons Solicitors: The FULL SDT Hearing published

Well It has taken it’s time, some say OVERTIME, but it is finally here.

The FULL hearing into Davenport Lyons Lawyers Dave Gore and Brian Miller.

(On Page 7 at 18 the cryptic letters are as follows …

Tw = Topware Interactive

Cm = Codemaasters

RP = Reality Pump

T = Techland

A = Atari

Dp = Digiprotect

Ls = Logistep)

I realise they may be seeking anonymity, but NONE of them have apologised for the pain they caused, so I think they are fair game.

It has come to my attention that this PDF is NOT searchable, so here is one that is.  I must caution you however that this is an OCR Conversion and may contain grammatical innacuracies. 

I would urge you to use this one for it’s search capability and then compare the results with the original.  Unlike those engaged in Speculative Invoicing, I like to be accurate… I hope you understand.

Here is the SEARCHABLE version

Please post any observations or comments below.

To Download each version. Please click HERE for the original….

And Click HERE for the Searchable version.

About these ads
  1. Jack
    October 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Excellent post Hickster, these two fraudsters get a £20,000 fine and £150,000 costs (interim payment) & three month Suspension each, but Andrew Crossley gets plenty of collateral damage too and it’s not even his own Disciplinary Tribunal.
    Section 178 notes how Davenport Lyons had copyrighted the speculative invoicing scam and ACS:law were using the method under license from Davenport Lyons and the whole of the DL management committee had been informed what was going on.

    “The firm had copyrighted their work
    used in the scheme and when they passed the cases to ACS:Law they had
    granted that firm a licence to use the know-how that the Firm had developed.
    The Tribunal’s attention was drawn to frequent references in intemal
    documentation to the ‘model’ and the requirements to make it work profitably
    for the Firm. These references included a report to the Firm’s management
    committee dated I 0 March 2008 submitted to it by the First Respondent.”

    A little more.
    Section 219;
    “All the allegations against both Respondents had been found proved beyond
    reasonable doubt. The misconduct involved had caused serious damage to the trust
    which the public placed in the individuals and in the profession.”

    Sections 216 & 217 express embarrassment and humiliation about being found guilty of taking advantage of the public but there’s no expression of remorse for their actions or an apology to their victims …….Disgusting.

    • October 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      Thanks, I think their excuses are innapropriate, it is of no importance what happend “just before the hearings”, however sad that is. The APOLOGY is the thing here, missing from both themselves and Andrew Crossley, and his smug sidekick Terence Tsang, (Who can forget him in the chatrooms?)

      An apology would prove that they really are “deeply embarrassed, and humiliated that the Tribunal had found they acted in this way”, without the apology it just shows they are only “deeply embarrassed, and humiliated”, that they were caught.

      Apologise and do it quickly!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 295 other followers

%d bloggers like this: