Davenport Lyons Violated SIX rules of the Solicitors Code of Conduct

This image created 01_04_10 BEFORE ACS were also referred

Davenport Lyons the originator of the odious “Speculative Invoicing” scheme, have been found guilty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) of breaching SIX rules of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

 They were referred to the SDT by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, after a complaint by Which? and protests from many many innocent people who had received letters. , after a campaing of “Bullying” against Members of the general public.

The SDT met for a week and has now found that the SIX allegations against the two members of Davenport Lyons are proven and upheld.   Brian Miller has since left the Law firm but Dave Gore is a Partner.

The SIX allegations of breaching the Solicitors Code of Conduct, now proven are as follows:

(1) Breach of rule 1.03 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007: respondents allowed their independence to be compromised.

(2) Breach of rule 1.04: respondents did not act in the best interests of their clients.

(3) Breach of rule 1.06: respondents acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public place in them or in the legal profession.

(4) Breach of rule 2.04(1): respondents entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law.

(5) Breach of rule 3.01: respondents acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted under the rules, in particular because there was a conflict or significant risk that the respondents and/or their firm’s interests were in conflict with those of their clients.

(6) Breach of rule 10.01: respondents used their position as solicitors to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons, being recipients of letters of claim either for their own benefit or for the benefit of their clients.

It remains to be seen what sanctions will be imposed on the two.

The Firm that took up the “Speculative Invoicing” baton ACS:LAW and their Principal Andrew Crossley has also been referred to the SDT and will appear this October.  Andrew Crossley has already slammed Davenport Lyons for being “rubbish” and “Arrogant” in the way they conducted their business.

The SRA said it “welcomes the decision of the SDT in this case brought for the protection of consumers”.

Updates will follow…..

About Hickster

I am one of the many innocent people who have been accused of file sharing by Copyright Trolls, my letter came from the now infamous ACS:LAW, but they have now been emulated by many more using the same system. Their ruse is simple, Send out letters of claim with NO Real evidence beyond an IP address that they claim was captured using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza. My REAL opinion of these companies turned when they started sending out Pornography claims, THAT is what I find most disturbing. People who HAVE to pay up without the option of having their day in Court. THAT is NOT Justice. Why can't they just go to Court? because the Lawyers, pitch the price of paying the "Compensation" at about the same rate as hiring a lawyer to fight it. Things have changed in the last 8 years though. I would advise people to read the "Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2", research these people yourselves, and find me at Slyck Forums, or on Twitter. Do NOT Worry, Stand Strong
This entry was posted in ACS LAW Letters and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Davenport Lyons Violated SIX rules of the Solicitors Code of Conduct

  1. Jack says:

    Self regulation is indeed in the spotlight, any failure to deliver appropriate actions by the SDT won’t be acceptable, letting off Miller & Gore with buying dinner for the SRA at the club won’t do.
    Last week the Chancellor was talking about more control over the Financial Services Authority, i.e the Bank of England & the Government overseeing the FSA.
    If the current Government do indeed have concerns about self regulation then the SRA need to be seen to do their job unless they want the Government to look at getting someone else to do the job.

    Watch out for Crossley’s hearing, Andy hasn’t done anything wrong at all, it’s everyone one else’s fault …… at least that’s his story.

  2. Anonymous says:

    20,00 fine puts smile on my face,(as i was fined by these and cost me £900 and did nothing wrong) someone should look more into the background of this as the solicitors the company gettin ip`s and the judge who approved court order are all from same country originally.(????) im supprised no-one has found this as i got info from google searching these people and companys.

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