Search

Slater and Gordon Lawyers are referred to the Legal Ombudsman for failure to provide legal services


Since 16 January 2017 I had submitted a considerable number of emails and had telephone conversation with officials of Slater and Gordon Lawyers in a bid to secure the services of this Law Firm as I resisted what I saw as persecution. No progress could be made and I had to finally refer the Law Firm to the Legal Ombudsman as follows:

Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517 (11) Shan Panigrahi To Paul R. Reddy CC Enquiries 11 Apr at 1:55 PM

Dear Mr Reddy

1. The complaint that has been lodged with the Legal Ombudsman is against Slater and Gordon Lawyers, not your department of this Firm of Lawyers. As such I am strongly objecting to your defence that states that correspondence entered prior to 9 March 2017 is not relevant to this complaint. You have 8 weeks to provide me and the Legal Ombudsman with Slater and Gordon’s final defence as you will be aware from the Legal Ombudsman’s rules.

2. Since you state clearly that you will not engage in any further correspondence with me I am hereby requesting the Legal Ombudsman to waive the requirement for an 8 week cooling off period and determine this complaint now.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 10 April 2017, 16:05, Paul R. Reddy wrote:

Dr Panigrahi,

I will address you points below but I will not be corresponding with you again after this.

1. No they are not. They are accurate and have always been entirely consistent. I have all the emails to prove this. You initially spoke to my colleague in the London office Daniel Jackson, then you were advised by Elizabeth Findlay. In short the advice was; a. We can represent you to appeal the sentence imposed in the magistrates court. b. We cannot represent you to appeal the conviction as you pleaded guilty in the magistrates court. c. We cannot represent you in a claim for damages in the high court. This would be civil proceedings and is not the area in which we specialise. d. We cannot represent you in a private prosecution against Kent Police, this is not something the firm offers plus we would be professionally conflicted and unable to act.

You responded saying that her advice was not acceptable to you. This was not unfair or unjustifiable. She explained what we could and could not do for you. You rejected this advice commenting on it in an email to the Court. This was in relation to the Crown Court case. We were only contacted by you about this case on 9th March for the first time in respect of the appeal to the Crown Court. So after the Magistrates case had concluded.

2. Any telephone contact, emails or web-chats that took place before 9th March certainly did not include this department. I have no idea what you were advised there. We responded promptly to the single enquiry we were aware of. 3. The only parties that Slater & Gordon have corresponded with concerning your case, other than yourself are the parties that you had already copied in to emails. These responses were simple email responses, replying to all copied-in to clarify our position. You will have this correspondence in your emails so I need-not send copies again.

As indicated above, I will not now respond to you any further regarding these matters. Please do not copy myself or this firm in on any further correspondence.

Thank you,

Paul Reddy Practice Group Leader Slater and Gordon (UK) LLP

58 Mosley Street,Manchester,M2 3HZ DX : 14340 Manchester 1 Tel : 0161 383 3561 | Fax : 0161 383 3580

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 10 April 2017 15:22 To: Paul R. Reddy Subject: Re: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517

Dear Mr Reddy

1. Your statements are erroneous to the point of being criminal. As far as my recollection tells me you have only written to me once that that was a single sentence refusing to act on my behalf unfairly and unjustifiably at the Appeal before the matter of the private prosecution was entertained by Maidstone Crown Court. So you did not respond to the matter currently being processed. Further Slater and Gordon steadfastly watched me suffering until the Hearing at the Medway Magistrates Court was over without replying to my requests for help.

2. It is therefore untrue that I made only a single telephone enquiry with Slater and Gordon. The emails that I have sent since 16 January 2017 and the webchats that I have had since with your colleagues are recorded so you should trace that correspondence before responding. Your colleague Elizabeth Findlay offered to represent me at the Appeal at the cost of £3000-£4000, with £500 to be paid in advance. I was prepared for this expenditure.

3. Finally, I have never been told by you of the parties other than me that Slater and Gordon has communicated with concerning this Case. I would therefore require proof of such correspondence immediately.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Monday, 10 April 2017, 14:43, Paul R. Reddy wrote To ‘Shan Panigrahi’ Enquiries Maidstone Crown CC Sue Brady Enquiries

Dear Sirs,

I have already responded regarding this matter in detail, however, for the avoidance of any doubt I wish to make it clear that neither myself personally nor Slater & Gordon Lawyers generally are willing or able to represent Dr Shantanu Panigrahi in the proceedings he discusses.

We have never been formally instructed nor retained in this case. We have only ever responded to an initial telephone enquiry.

This information has already been communicated to all parties concerned on several occasions.

Kind regards,

Paul Reddy Practice Group Leader Slater and Gordon (UK) LLP

58 Mosley Street,Manchester,M2 3HZ DX : 14340 Manchester 1 Tel : 0161 383 3561 | Fax : 0161 383 3580

From: Shan Panigrahi [mailto:shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 10 April 2017 11:08 To: Enquiries Maidstone Crown Cc: Sue Brady; Paul R. Reddy; Enquiries Subject: Appeal Mention to Fix A20170027 46TY0039517

To Maidstone Crown Court

Dear Sir

1. On 29 March 2017, I put up a number of items on an email on which I wished to prosecute Kent Police in submitting to the Court a tentative Case for the Prosecution as I reopened these proceedings, but I have heard nothing from your official Ms Sue Brady on the current state of play in the Appeal.

2. I believed that the Court had ruled that my private prosecution of Kent Police should proceed in accordance with the agreement reached with Ms Sue Brady during that email correspondence. In this regard, I have yet to be informed of the outcome of the Judicial Review of the specific points raised concerning Respondent’s Costs or Court Costs and other Orders that the Court might consider necessary should the prosecution fail to convict.

3. As agreed earlier if there is going to be any further proceedings on my Appeal I will need to instruct a lawyer to contact the Court given that I am unable to attend any Hearings on account of being on anti-psychotic medication. I am therefore copying this email to Slater and Gordon so that it may immediately inform me on whether it is willing to undertake the work in the Appeal. Mr Reddy should note that failure to reply again will this time result in a complaint being lodged against this Firm of Lawyers with the Legal Ombudsman who is also therefore being informed of this complaint by copy of this email.

4. Your immediate attention will be appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL

**********************************************************************

Comment: There was no acknowledgement of the application from the Legal Ombudsman.

April 23, 2017 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Information Received - Review Letter - OTP-CR-76/22 Inbox from: OTP InformationDesk <OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int> to: "shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com" <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com> date:

Your Reference: 22/444/CM/PCC Yahoo / Sent Shantanu Panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.com> To: civil.claims@kent.pnn.police.uk Tue, 10 May at 20:22 To Civil Claim Officers Thank you for this morning'