Dear Mr. Davey
I am afraid your undated reply to my letter of the 30th October, answers none of the questions asked. Your office and the "committee" have shown a total disregard to the many complaints and facts given to you.
Your office and the "committee" appear to be unable and unwilling to comprehend the enormity of the fraudulent take-over of my brother's inheritance which started with the intrusion of the late Charles Gilpin and his solicitor Mr. H. Wright immediately after the death of my father in July 1972. It should be obvious to all, that this intrusion was not in the interest of my elderly mother, who was in a confused state at this time, or her mentally handicapped son.
Is it accepted as normal practice for senior partners of Messrs Tughan & Co, to give a junior partner just appointed in August 1972 a free hand and without supervision to dispose of a mental patient's estate, in the interest of another client, two solicitors and a J.P. who managed with the help of Mr. H. Wright to take Freddie's home from him and two of his town properties?
We are not interested in Gilpin but in the fact that senior members in a large firm of solicitors, allowed this plunder to take place over a number of years, and managed to look the "other way" and leave that junior partner to take the blame.
Why did your "committee" state in the strongest terms that they were at pains to inform us that there was no dishonesty involved?
I asked you, Mr. Davey, to define the word dishonesty in legal terms but you refused to answer this question.
Is this all that so-called learned gentlemen can come up with to a family asking that justice should be seen to be done? If so it is a pathetic gesture and leaves us under no illusion that your ability and the ability of members of the "committee" to protect the public from malpractice and fraud leaves much to be desired.
Do you and your "committee" ignore the fact that grave negligence has run rampant in the offices of Messrs Tughan & Co? You have also failed to recognise that a mental patient was made to sign legal documents by people with the full knowledge that he would not understand what he was signing, and also openly serve other clients, Gilpin and his cohorts, with confidential information relating to my mother and Freddie, yet your office have refused to do anything about it.
Solicitors have been debating this case behind closed doors and closed courts for a number of years but they refuse to risk the reputations of their colleagues in exposing the massive cover-up which has persisted to this day. Your office and the "committee" appear to be afraid to make any comment or take action, preferring to leave the "status quo".
Culbert & Martin in their letter of the 1st August 1986 stated that Brian Hall had direct evidence having interviewed the solicitors involved and examined documents. What documents did he examine? Freddie's deeds and leases had already been handed round like a pack of cards years previously, the cover-up was then complete.
Four short months after Brian Hall was appointed to the post of official solicitor, he made out what he called "A Comprehensive Report" to the High Court, a "Report" based largely on the word of those who had divested Freddie of his estate - hardly a reliable source. In a letter Mr. Hall said he got the "true facts" in one afternoon in the office of Tughan & Co. when Mr. H. Wright was present. How did he know he got the "true facts"?
We had to ask the help of two experienced fraud officers long before Hall was appointed, who spent three and a half years collecting direct evidence, not one afternoon. They not only interviewed Charles Gilpin, but they also interviewed solicitors and estate agents who co-operated willingly with solicitor Mr. H. Wright and his client Charles Gilpin. How did Mr. Hall expect to get the "true facts" from Messrs Tughan & Co., when they were never supposed to be aware of what their junior partner, Herbert Wright, was doing with the property tycoon the late Charles Gilpin?
It wasn't a hard task, for all these so-called pillars of society had to do was outwit a mentally-handicapped patient and his elderly mother.
I do hope you will understand why we prefer the fraud officers' "Report" which was totally independent. They refused to protect anyone involved and did their job without fear or favour. These are the facts you and your "committee" chose to ignore. You left a mental patient at the mercy of thieves and con-men who appear to be able to command more protection from your office and the "committee" and the courts than a patient who cannot defend or speak for himself, and the family silenced because decisions were taken behind closed doors and without our consent. The only people who were aware of the true facts were the fraud officers but they were never asked to give evidence in court nor was Dr. A. Lyons, my brother's psychiatrist. It was meant to be a closed book. The can of worms had to be kept shut.
We have been continually advised by members of the public and friends to expect no results or protection from your Society, the Law Society. We had hoped to prove them wrong. Now there is nothing we can do but join with these members of the public who had warned us that it was a futile exercise to expect justice when so many solicitors were involved, solicitors who will sit back and say nothing when it is necessary for them to forcibly say a lot, simply for the sake of protecting their legal colleagues.
It may help in future since you have refused to accept our direct evidence, to be aware of the contents of the Mental Health Act 1986.
We are now painfully aware that your "committee" and your society agree that it is not dishonest for a solicitor and his associates to divest a mental patient of his estate and allow him to sign legal documents. To lay people like our family and friends, however, it is a horrendous exercise to attempt to silence us. The only thing it does is leave a bad taste in our mouths and gives us no confidence in the legal profession which, it appears, gets more protection from your Society and "committee" than an innocent mental patient.
I understand your office has a list of solicitors willing to act against other solicitors. Would you please be good enough to send us this list? It may be useful for future reference though we hope to avoid the legal profession like the plague after our unhappy experience. Their little "secrets" have been crudely exposed.
Eileen Wright (Mrs.)