Background

A previous member of UKMM was deserted by his wife, who had taken the children, then aged 4 and 7, some 350 miles distance from their home, asked for the home to be sold, and wanted a divorce based on 2 years separation.

Mrs Mary Shaw, Solicitor

The member consulted David Gray & Co, Solicitors, Newcastle, and was advised by Mrs Mary Shaw, then an employee, later a partner in the firm. The firm has members of the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA).

Our member, at a time of great danger for him, was then very ignorant of the law. He had asked this solicitor what the law was, and what action he should take to protect his interests. He therefore had placed his interests in the hands of this solicitor, during this, the greatest trauma of his life at his mid-40s.

We believe that the best way to describe the adequacy of Mrs Mary Shaw's advice, is to describe the final outcomes of the case, and to leave the reader to decide for him/herself on the suitability of that advice. Put simply, our member's life was seriously damaged, without any matrimonial offence, and the law never did not operate to protect his interests. Details are given below. Our member left these solicitors ignorant of the outcomes of typical cases as described on this website, and ignorant e.g. of the 'no-fault' divorce principle which ensures no protection for innocent men's interests, of the likelyhood of a fabricated divorce petition, and of the bias in court welfare officer's reports.

Our member also received from Mrs Mary Shaw serious verbal abuse while discussing the case. Examples of what Mrs Shaw said are :

• said in an abusive way - "she doesn't want to live with you any more"

• when she had no instructions to act - "the best thing is to break up this marriage as soon as possible, give me the financial information and we'll get on with it"

• Mrs Shaw had no information at that time about the mother's and father's abilities in childcare; when discussing the children, our member said that he considered that he could look after the children as well as his wife, and back came the response in a snapping and disrespectful manner  - "who say's that ?"

• in describing possible legal actions, she reminded our member of the possibility of being sent to jail for contempt of court; our member felt as though he was being threatened by his own solicitor;

• after our member had had the possible financial outcome explained to him, he said "that seems awfully hard on men", and back came the response - "do you know how many women there are in the House of Commons ?".

We believe that this type of verbal abuse indicates the attitude of Mrs Shaw towards our member.

Almost incredibly, he also had smoke blown in his face by another solicitor at the firm, Jan Cookson, who had continued to smoke during a consultation about a possible will.

Our member subsequently dismissed Mrs Mary Shaw and engaged another solicitor.

The most significant indication of the adequacy of the advice given by Mrs Shaw is in the final outcomes of the case : that our member was, even after appointing a second solicitor :

• remained separated from his children by 350 miles;

• forced to sell the home he had just spent 3 years renovating for the family's benefit;

• had most of his life savings confiscated and made over to a woman who had deserted him, even though he was not guilty of any matrimonial offence;

• and then forced to send maintenance to this ex-wife, who later remarried, and who was, as a result of this maintenance, in profit by a few thousand pounds per year of unearned income;

• to add insult to injury : he was even forced to travel the 350 miles to attend court and mediation on several occasions, so that it would be convenient for this deserting wife, and in order to see this legal system destroy the fabric of his life; and he was required to actually pay some of the costs of transport for his children on visits for the following 12 years, even though he was not in the least responsible for the distance between himself and the children and had taken all steps possible to prevent it.

District Judge Bullock

Our member later sued David Gray & Co  in the Small Claims Court for return of the fees paid for his treatment at the hands of Mrs Shaw. The case was heard by District Judge Bullock.

Mrs Shaw did not attend the hearing, but another from the same firm did. This solicitor accused our member of being mentally ill at the time of the consultations with Mrs Shaw.

Our member's affidavit contained all relevant information, and quoted the Law Society's 'Professional Conduct of Solicitors' code, including :

• Principle 13.01  "A solicitor is under a duty to carry out the terms of his retainer with due care and skill, proper diligence and promptness; he must also keep his client properly informed."

• Principle 15.01 "A solicitor must not act ... towards anyone in a way which is ... contrary to his position as a solicitor ..."

Bullock's Judgement included :

• "Mr *  is clearly a man who is totally disenchanted with all the legal advice and processes he has been through"

• "there is no breach of contract here and incidently there is no breach of the Codes of Practice"

• "it is not a solicitor's job to egg a client on to take action if that is not what a client wants"

and ended with :

Do you agree with Bullock's judgement that there was no breach of contract, or of the Codes of Practice, or any failure to properly advise ?

Comment : our member has also subsequently heard Mrs Shaw speaking about family law on BBC Radio Newcastle, on several occasions, where she appears to be regarded as a local expert in the subject.