Scandal hit Leeds law firm rocked by further misconduct revelations

Leeds is generally recognised as the second most important legal centre in the UK and is home to some famous old firms such as Addleshaws and Dibb Lupton. Those two law practices would be the amongst first calls for the powerful and wealthy who could afford the best, and most expensive lawyers, housed in plush city centre offices. Such clients would, accordingly, expect top class professional advice, court procedures followed to the letter and a successful outcome.

Those of us less well off might have to set sights lower and hope to chance upon a reliable, if less well known firm, such as Lester Morrill, that would be sufficiently competent to ensure that our legal interests were properly protected and a satisfactory outcome secured.

Someone down on their luck, however, might chance upon the dispute resolution team at Cohen Cramer and end up regretting that choice: Poorly judged representation, rules and regulations treated with disdain, money frittered away, an adverse result and a further stain not only on Cohen Cramer’s tarnished reputation but, potentially, damage to your own as well.

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 23.03.37

Cohen Cramer came into existence in 2008 following a merger between two local law firms, Howard Cohen & Co and Cramer Richards. The former appear to have been best known as a bulk debt collecting firm operating from a PO Box in Cleckheaton, the latter a sports reputation management specialist.

At the time of the merger, joint managing partner Richard Cramer said: “We’ve joined forces to give more to our clients. The expertise we each have complements the other perfectly“. Mr Cramer is no longer associated with the firm that bears his name. The other principal figure in the merged operation, Howard Sidney Cohen, is no longer around either. His licence to practice expired in May 2014. Mr Cohen does, however, still describes himself as ‘Lawyer’ and Trustee to the troubled Shadwell care home, Donisthorpe Hall.(Full list of trustees and their roles here). The care home has just been rated as ‘inadequate’ by the CQC for the second time in six months and has been subject to criticism, some of it damning, for almost two years. This, in spite of repeated promises of appropriate remedial action by Mr Cohen and his fellow trustees. Full story here.

The former Cohen Cramer lawyer should not be confused with Howard Cohen, a practicing partner in Winston Solicitors LLP, another Leeds law firm.

Following the merger, the enlarged firm boasted nine partners, thirty lawyers and twenty support staff. The total Cohen Cramer staff complement at the time was over seventy, according to the entry they submitted to the UK Legal Directory (read here), and after they had moved to substantial premises close to the law courts in Leeds. Since May 2014, they have been housed in a converted tailoring factory further away from the city centre.

According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) website there are now just eleven lawyers remaining (full list here). Two of whom have only very recently qualified. Another,  Mike Massen, joined Cohen Cramer in June 2014 when Gartons Solicitors was taken into the Cohen Cramer fold.

Four of the lawyers are listed at Companies House as Directors of Cohen Cramer Limited – Simon Baskind (also listed as Company Secretary), John Goodwin, Michael McDonnell and Emma Mason. The firm’s website page featuring these four is oddly vacant, apart from a stylish monochrome photograph (see here).

The exodus of key staff including, it seems, eighteen lawyers and five partners, might go some way to explaining the present state of their finances, as shown in the latest Cohen Cramer Ltd published accounts (read in full here). The money owed to the firm’s creditors is a staggering £3,654,839 (including longer term debt of £288,833) and there is a net current deficit of £951,605. Uncollected debts amount to £2,140,194.

Also, the concept that the Cohen Cramer name might still be worth over £2 million on the open market (presumably calculated as the sum of the respective sale and purchase valuations of Howard Cohen & Co, Cramer Richards and Gartons) might well confound some banking and accountancy experts. Especially now, in the notable absence of the two eponymous founding fathers and former managing partner, John Grant, who left Cohen Cramer in October 2012. Mr Grant had been with Howard Cohen & Co since 1987 and built up a specialist, and highly regarded, dental industry law practice. He is now a partner of rival firm, Goodman Grant, based in Leeds city centre.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 19.02.20

Two very experienced chartered accountants (one is also a certified fraud examiner, the other a local government auditor) have both scrutinised the published balance sheet of Cohen Cramer Ltd and highlighted similar anomalies:

  • Age and collectability of the £2,140,194 debts owed to the firm. Particularly, as Cohen Cramer put themselves up as experts in cashflow maintenance (see graphic above)
  • Amount owed to short term creditors, £3,366,006 is massive in relation to size of firm
  • No reflection of any asset associated with the longer term debt of £288,833
  • The net current deficit of £951,605 raises ‘going concern’ issues
  • ‘Stock’ valued at £257,420 for a service provider seems both unusual and grossly excessive
  • There is no note attached to the provisions for liabilities in the sum of £46,124 and no distinction made between provisions and any contingent liabilities
  • Lack of detail, or evidence, supporting intangible asset valuation of £2,008,073 (now amortised to £1,806,055) raises stewardship concerns over the production of these unaudited figures
  • Stewardship concerns were also raised regarding the absence of a profit and loss account. The Directors are, of course, entitled to rely on a Companies Act exemption for not publishing such figures.

One of the financial experts described the firm’s accounts as a “shambles”, the other said that publication of this article would be “devastating” to Cohen Cramer Ltd, unless they were able to show that their financial position has improved dramatically. Or, that the company was able to reverse the exodus of key fee-earners.

A partner in a well-known, award-winning, firm of solicitors in Leeds told me: “The city has suffered a string of law firm failures. Fox Hayes being the highest profile (read more here) – and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this one join them”.

Three of the solicitors who do remain with the firm are described on the Cohen Cramer website as “partners”: Karen Cawood, David Hall and the same Emma Mason who is also listed as a Director. With whom they are in partnership, and to what practical or financial purpose, is not made clear on the Cohen Cramer website.

Clarification was sought from each of the three “partners” on 28th March, 2016 regarding their roles. Six weeks later, a response is still awaited from all three.

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 17.07.11

One of those “partners”, Mr Hall, works in the Cohen Cramer Disputes Team that is a principal focus of this article. He is certainly not listed as a partner on the Law Society database. As can be clearly seen in the image above he is an “associate”. A legitimate concern is that public sector clients may be charged a higher rate on the premise of seniority by a ghost “partner” in Cohen Cramer.

Apart from Mr Hall, there are only two other employees listed on the firm’s website as working in that department: The aforementioned Mr McDonnell and Gemma Bowkett, who started out with the firm in 2012 as a graduate assistant and was admitted as a solicitor in November, 2015.

Until a year ago there was another member of the Disputes Team who was, arguably, better known than all the other three, put together. The antics of the now notorious Emily Slater brought adverse publicity to not only Cohen Cramer, but to the wider legal profession.

  • She was the subject of a highly destructive article in the Daily Mirror following the unlawful arrest of a defendant in a civil claim.
  • The calibre of her legal work was criticised by judges, in open court, on at least four occasions. Mainly around failure to observe due process.
  • She is the principal subject of a relentless and devastating blog run by one of her legal ‘victims’, Stuart Brown.
  • She has also been heavily criticised by me in another article on this website: Liar, liar. Pants on fire
  • The high profile cases in which she was involved all appeared to end in failure for Cohen Cramer, their clients and herself.

So, how was Miss Slater, a junior, inexperienced practitioner of less than four years admission as a solicitor allowed to run amok, cause so much reputational damage and, effectively, end her own legal career prematurely? The first clue is in the track record of the senior solicitor directly supervising her, the aforementioned Michael McDonnell. The SRA found that Mr McDonnell practices law and runs his firm’s affairs in this manner:

  • Allowed the independence of himself and his firm to be compromised in a deal with a connected debt-chasing company
  • Acted in a manner likely to diminish confidence in the legal profession
  • Unlawfully conducted litigation
  • Failed to make arrangements for the effective management of the firm’s office
  • Failed to ensure an adequate system of supervision of clients’ matters conducted from the firm’s office
  • Entered into a financial arrangement which did not comply with the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct

That is a damning indictment of any law professional – or firm – and, given the scale and scope of the complaints against him and his firm over a long period, it is reasonable to infer that Mr McDonnell may have come close to being struck off.

Emily Slater left Cohen Cramer in January 2015 and, according to the SRA website, she has not practiced as a lawyer since. One report on the internet, that states Miss Slater was ‘fired‘, stands unchallenged by either her, or her former employers, over a year later.

Screen Shot 2016-03-28 at 09.21.10

A further clue as to the professional demise of Miss Slater comes from a short examination of the conduct of one of the other two solicitors who is under Mr McDonnell’s supervision in his Disputes Team.

Ghost “partner” David Hall, in the six years he has worked with Mr McDonnell, has clearly absorbed the unscrupulous culture prevailing in Cohen Cramer’s Disputes Team. Mr Hall regards Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction as little more than a rough guide to litigation. His incompetence, exposed in open court, may yet become a legal ‘Hall-mark’, so to speak. Similarly, his wearisome belligerence and arrogance. These, significantly, were also the signature traits of the severely criticised Emily Slater.

Since this article was first published, a number of people have come forward with evidence of conduct by yet another Cohen Cramer employee that falls well below the required ethical and professional standards. This new material concerns Sarah McKell, who works in the firm’s POCA department . Curiously, her LinkedIn profile describes as a ‘senior lawyer’ having joined the firm in November 2014 (her fourth job in seven years) but her name doesn’t show up on the Law Society database either individually, or as part of Cohen Cramer’s complement of admitted solicitors. Clarification on this point – and others concerning supervision, oversight and, potentially, passing off – has been sought from both the troubled firm and from Miss McKell.

Screen Shot 2016-05-04 at 12.04.37

The firm’s website says: ‘Sarah has been working in the legal profession for over 10 years, gaining experience in a wide range of areas of law’. Which, on what I have been able to uncover, appears to be a stretch of the truth.

On the written evidence I have seen, Miss McKell admits to a client, who recently fired her, that she had let them down professionally and personally. There is also no trace of letters setting out terms of engagement or client care in the file. Nor is there a letter ending the arrangment. Miss McKell withdrew her services via text message from her mobile phone.

Moreover, and more crucially, Miss McKell conceded that she had ‘badly advised’ that client, with near disastrous consequences.

On the same day that Sarah McKell’s shortcomings were identified in this article her Facebook profile was taken down. Having looked at her timeline previously, the reason could have been some of the more colourful language on display that was hardly becoming of a ‘senior lawyer’.

Miss McKell’s LinkedIn profile was also amended within 24 hours of naming her – and the reference to ‘senior lawyer’ removed from her profile.

Those two events could, of course, be unconnected to my own enquiries.

Nevertheless, several days of reckoning loom for Cohen Cramer and their ill-starred litigation lawyers as these were the warnings issued by the SRA, in its 2013 findings:

  • That Cohen Cramer and Mr McDonnell will ensure that they allocate sufficient resources to the supervision and management of the firm so as to satisfy the SRA that they are able to meet all their obligations under the SRA handbook.
  • The firm will as soon as reasonably practicable notify the SRA of any material change in the supervision arrangements.
  • Cohen Cramer and Mr McDonnell agree that they will not act in any way that is inconsistent with the SRA finding such as, for example, but without limitation, by denying the misconduct
  • If the supervision undertaking is not complied with, or if Cohen Cramer or Mr McDonnell acts in any way inconsistently with the SRA finding, the firm and Mr McDonnell accept that proceedings could be issued before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Both Stuart Brown and I are confident that we can demonstrate beyond any doubt, simply by reference to court documents and the like, that the Cohen Cramer litigation leopard has not changed its spots and, as far as conducting legal disputes is concerned, matters have worsened, not improved, since the SRA investigation.

When first approached for comment, Simon Baskind, the Managing Director of Cohen Cramer Limited (and described as ‘Owner’ of Cohen Cramer on his LinkedIn profile), claims there are a number of ‘factual errors and misrepresentations within (my) articles’. Despite being pressed, he has refused to particularise his assertions. He also offers the view that my publications (this one and an article titled Hangin’ on a telephone wire) are ‘malicious’. But, again, offers no particulars in the face of an invitation to do so.

Mr Baskind has also refused to answer why he believes that a fit-for-purpose report that highlights the practical and regulatory failings, and precarious financial position, of a law firm receiving funding from the likes of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is not a public interest matter.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 18.18.15

More particularly, he has refused to provide any substantiation, or clarification, to the questions I have raised about his firm’s unaudited financial figures that are one of the two central points of public interest raised by this article. It has been made clear to Mr Baskind that if he provides the figures for the period ended 31st December, 2015 – and they are substantially different from the 2014 version – they will be reported upon accordingly.

Mr Baskind is similarly silent on the ‘ghost partners’ issue, but a footnote on their website says that ‘partners’ are so described to reflect their status within the firm. The questions concerning Miss McKell’s status and unethical conduct have also, so far, been ignored completely. As have those concerning supervision and his own self-evident stewardship and oversight failings. ‘Stonewall Simon’ is now on notice that if he continues to unreasonably block my questions, or my request for an interview, I will exercise my journalists’s discretion to doorstep him.

Comment has been sought from the IPCC as to the type of checks made by them over the financial  position of a law firm with whom they are believed to have spent around £150,000 – and also the track record, status and supervision arrangements of the three lawyers who have, so far, carried out the work on the IPCC’s behalf. Not to mention the antics of ‘senior lawyer’ Sarah McKell.

The press office at the Solicitors Regulation Authority have, helpfully, provided comprehensive responses on regulatory and financial questions put to them about intervention thresholds where conduct may breach a previous settlement, or there are concerns about the financial status.

Screen Shot 2016-04-01 at 16.42.26

In contrast, but unsurprisingly, the IPCC have not had the courtesy to acknowledge the emails sent to them and to their Northern area press officer, Diane Bramall.

Final words in this piece go to Lupton Fawcett Managing Director, Richard Marshall, who told the Yorkshire Post at the time of his own firm’s merger with Denison Till: “Out of 11,000 law firms, roughly 3,000 are probably at serious risk of failure. Thirty of the top 200 firms are being actively monitored by the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) as at risk of collapse. A number of firms are being starved of cash, partly through poor working capital management and partly because the banks are tending to have a polarised view of the legal services market.”

_________________________________________________________________

Page last updated Tuesday 17th May, 2016 at 0835hrs

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. Unauthorised use or reproduction of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from and links to the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Photo credits: The Law Society, The Business Network, LinkedIn

 

 

 

 

 

Hangin’ on a telephone wire

This is the unexpected sequel to the Liar, liar story as the case which appeared to have been brought to an end in December 2015, with a settlement very much in my favour, has now erupted into another series of legal arguments.

Earlier this year, I published an article on this website called Liar, liar. Pants on fire. It is an account of the protracted legal battle between the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), and myself, over the right to publish articles concerning alleged incompetence and corruption within the ranks of the so-called ‘police watchdog’.

 

logotype

The twin thrusts of the Liar, liar piece were the decision by the IPCC’s Chief Executive, Lesley Longstone, to apply a huge sum of public funds in attempting to silence their critics, including me, and the disgraceful manner in which the litigation had been conducted.

Amongst the issues highlighted were breaches of court rules by the IPCC’s solicitors of choice, troubled Leeds law firm Cohen Cramer, and persistent lying in witness evidence by two of the IPCC’s employees (or ‘lay claimants’ as they are significantly described by their own barrister).

This is the unexpected sequel to the Liar, liar story as the case which appeared to have been brought to an end in December 2015, with a settlement very much in my favour, has now erupted into another series of legal arguments.

This time around, the battleground has changed. The harassment case against me, brought by the IPCC’s lay claimants, did not achieve either of its objectives (a harassment finding or an injuction) and now the fight is over repeated breaches, by them, of the consent order that was agreed between all sides – and sealed by the court in January, 2016.

In three applications made to the court by me since, there are details of eleven such breaches set out against the three IPCC employees, who cannot presently be named for legal reasons. The IPCC claim, on behalf of the senior manager and two casework managers, that the article is ‘critical’ of them and their names should not be published on that basis.

In a tit-for-tat response, the IPCC have made an application of their own to the court alleging minor breaches of the consent order by me and, significantly, seeking the removal of the Liar, liar article from the internet.

Before the publication of the Liar, liar article, a comment or statement was sought from both the IPCC’s press office and Lesley Longstone. An unidentified press officer replied saying the IPCC did not wish to comment. Ms Longstone did not even acknowledge the email. Comment was also sought from David Hall,  an associate solicitor at Cohen Cramer Ltd., (pictured below alongside Mrs Longstone). He didn’t bother to reply, either.

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 18.28.23           David Hall Cohen Cramer

The legal action by the IPCC, seeking the removal of the article, was not preceded by any correspondence from either them – or Cohen Cramer. It was filed at court, without warning, a month after publication of the Liar, liar article.

The court application made by the IPCC, and fronted by their lay claimants, does not seek injunctive relief, but they are asking me to pay the costs of them taking out these proceedings against me.

A court hearing was originally listed for 10th March, 2016 but was adjourned due to circumstances beyond the control of either the IPCC, or myself. All four applications – the three of mine and the one filed by the IPCC – were re-listed to be heard on 18th April but that date had to be vacated due to non-availability of the IPCC’s barrister, Sara Mansoori.

Representing the IPCC in a harassment claim is very different to Ms Mansoori’s recent claim to fame in the controversial ‘celebrity threesome’ injunction case in which she represented ‘PJS’, the husband in a well-known entertainment industry coupling, at the original hearing (read more here).

The matter of the four applications concerning the IPCC and myself will now be ventilated at a full day hearing in Leeds County Court on 8th July, 2016.

The IPCC are again using public funds to finance this legal action, by three of their employees that, essentially, seeks to restrict my investigations into their activities and publish the findings. Despite refusing to provide a rationale for such a decision after being specifically requested to do so.

Proceedings have now been filed by me at the High Court in Leeds to begin the process of challenging the vires (legality) of this use of public money by the IPCC. This follows a childish refusal by the IPCC to even provide the name of the solicitor who will accept service of the claim form.

The Economic Crime Unit of West Yorkshire Police are to be invited to satisfy themselves that the arrangements for payments of invoices between the IPCC, their employees and Cohen Cramer meet the requirements of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Suspicion has arisen following the refusal by Mr Hall to appropriately answer questions on the matter.

Cohen Cramer (and David Hall’s line manager, Michael McDonnell) were the subject of an adverse finding by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority in 2013 (read in full here) over the manner in which they conduct litigation. In itself, this may look a serious and damning outcome for Cohen Cramer but complaints against predecessor firm, Howard Cohen & Co, had been persistent, and numerous, for at least five years before the sleepy lawyers’ watchdog finally delivered its findings. Some of the malpractice reported anecdotally, via the Consumers Action Group website, is troubling to say the least.

There are, presently, at least two other complaints to the SRA, including my own, concerning alleged regulatory breaches by Cohen Cramer during the conduct of litigation. Given the terms of the previous regulatory settlement against them, this is likely to cause the Leeds law firm considerable difficulty.

The other SRA complainant about whom I am specifically aware, Lincolnshire businessman Stuart Brown, has also issued civil proceedings alleging harassment against Cohen Cramer. Mr Brown’s issues with the law firm made the national press in an article highly critical of them (read in full here). I have been invited to give similar fact witness evidence in that claim.

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 13.20.58

In the circumstances, it seems reasonable to draw inference that the Daily Mirror article will not be the last time Cohen Cramer will be brought to account in the mainstream media. Such scrutiny is bound to include the question as to how a Home Office funded organisation, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is spending the significant amounts of the public’s cash with lawyers who have brought disgrace on their profession – and seem well set in continuing to do so.

Mr Hall of Cohen Cramer, Mrs Longstone of the IPCC and her Northern area press officer, Diane Bramall, were all approached for comment on this article on 26th March, 2016.

An acknowledgement of the email to Mrs Longstone was received from the IPCC’s contact centre on 4th April but no substantive response has been received since.

The emails to Mr Hall and Ms Bramall have, to date, not produced any response from either of them.

Recent enquiries have revealed that Mrs Longstone’s brother-in-law is an officer engaged with South Yorkshire Police. A force subject to ferocious criticism by both myself and many other justice campaigners connected to the Hillsborough Disaster, the Battle of Orgreave and the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal.

Mrs Longstone left her previous employment with the Ministry of Education in New Zealand under a cloud, resigning after just one year of a five year contract. It was reported that she had a poor relationship with the Minister employing her and there were also ‘strained relationships with other sector groups outside the ministry’. Full New Zealand Herald story can be viewed here.

_________________________________________________________________

Page last updated Sunday 24th April, 2016 at 1835hrs

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. Unauthorised use or reproduction of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from and links to the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Photo credits: LinkedIn, Mirror Online