Dear Mr Davey
The overdue reply by your Society and the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Committee do not give me confidence in the legal profession. It would appear that both your Society and the Disciplinary Committee are more concerned with protecting solicitors than members of the public.
The act of dispossessing my mentally handicapped brother of his inheritance is both disgraceful and dishonourable.
Why is the application of this test to persons, who have not themselves carried out work a difficult process? What constitutes the difficulty? Why has it to be accepted that different degrees of supervision will be required between qualified and unqualified staff? Further it is not apparent why this degree of supervision applies also to persons with varying degrees of experience.
Responsibility for the supervision of the above "classes" of solicitors in relation to my mentally handicapped brother's affairs is the sole concern of Messrs Tughan & Company.
Such lack of supervision is both disgraceful and dishonourable.
What were "all the circumstances" in this case considered by the Disciplinary Committee? The essential and basic circumstance in this case is that Messrs Tughan & Company condoned the action of Mr. H Wright in having a mental patient sign legal documents about which he would have no knowledge or understanding.
My mentally handicapped brother's estate was of considerable value not a few paltry pounds - witness, the one million pounds obtained by Mr H Wright's client the late Mr C Gilpin and the £375,000 which Mr H Wright is alleged to have obtained by falsely representing that Messrs Neville Johnston & Company had good and marketable title to extensive Smithfield properties which constituted my mentally handicapped brother's inheritance, given to him long before my father died, as a gilt edged security rather than actual cash which Freddie would have been incapable of handling.
We do not accept the illogical conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee and hold Messrs Tughan & Company responsible for the dissipation of Freddie's estate.
Those in charge of the patient had a duty under Section 5 Criminal Law Act 1967. Are they in breach of this Act?
Your verbose language does not obscure the truth or confuse us.
This "can of worms" is a conspiracy of silence and evident collusion and in view of the failure of the Disciplinary Committee to deal with it equitably we will continue to seek justice through other effective channels.
Copies of your letter, and mine to you, will be sent to all interested parties.
Eileen Wright (Mrs)