4 reviews (2/5) and information for Bolt Burdon Kemp, Islington

Home > UK Solicitor > Islington > Bolt Burdon Kemp

Add review

2.5 stars average for Bolt Burdon Kemp from 4 reviews  
4 Review(s)

0 review(s) removed
Why are reviews removed?

How to find us

Providence House, Providence Place, Islington, Greater London, N1 0NT

Facilities Office has disabled access,Office accepts Legal Aid

Languages spoken Arabic, Creole, English, French, Hindi, Italian, Punjabi, Urdu 
Size of firm 50 solicitors

Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


2.5 stars average for Bolt Burdon Kemp from 4 reviews

Based on 4 review(s)

Add review


5 stars   1
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   1
1 stars   2

Legal services at this branch

  • Administrative and public law
  • Advocacy
  • Clinical negligence
  • Human rights
  • Military
  • Personal injury

Add review

Filter Reviews


Bolt Burdon Kemp

Medical negligence

5 stars

21/01/21 - Reviewed by Rebone

I had an exceptional experience with bolt burden kemp I was injured whilst in the British army and never had a clue of how to get compensation. The people that looked after me took me by the hand and guided me through the whole process . They are professional and did and excellent job in getting me a settlement .

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 4   Thumbs down 2

Respond   Report abuse

Bolt Burdon Kemp

Medical negligence

1 stars

29/01/20 - Reviewed by Anonymous

If your military and want to claim against the MOD do not use this firm especially for medical cases there expert witnesses have no military knowledge, so have a completely different view of how the military medical and physio side of life works which led to my case being rejected a month before my time to claim expired but BBK were happy to inform me that if I could claim with another firm within that month they were still entitled to some of my pay out for the "work" they carried out.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 5   Thumbs down 4

Respond   Report abuse

Bolt Burdon Kemp

Personal injury

1 stars

27/06/19 - Reviewed by Inoke

Very Poor Service.This Law Firm sided with the Defendant and Forced me to take an out of Court Settlement.I refused and they Harrassed me for 6 months and forcing me to take the Offer.Dont trust them they are a Bunch of LIARS,CONMAN AND GREEDY BASTARDS

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 9   Thumbs down 4

Respond   Report abuse

Bolt Burdon Kemp

General Legal advice

2 stars

03/04/19 - Reviewed by Anonymous

barrister and to examine an underlying claim for illegal charges under a 2008 contract.
The instructions to the barrister stated that documents attached included “Terms and Conditions” (undated). Bolt, Burdon, Kemp had received the 2008 Terms and Conditions, and these were in the evidence bundle provided by the Ombudsman.
Any person would conclude that it was necessary for the barrister to see the 2008 Terms and Conditions and to cry “foul” if they had not been attached. It is unclear whether they were sent or whether they were overlooked by the barrister but it is not relevant. Liability would fall upon Bolt Burdon Kemp with whom the customer had a contract. Offering an opinion on a breach of contract without seeing it would be regarded as gross negligence, according to every source consulted.
In July 2014 the customer collected from Bolt Burdon Kemp the file of his case. That file did not include the instructions from Bolt, Burdon, Kemp to the barrister.
On 13th October 2015, the Ombudsman wrote: “[The barrister] says that the validity of the 2008 terms, which she admits she did not see, had no bearing on her opinion as she says that the crucial terms she relied upon, which were relevant to the claim were those of the 2001 document ….”
There is no indication of how the barrister could possibly offer a legal opinion on a breach of the 2008 Terms and Conditions without seeing them, but the Ombudsman is a lay organisation. If the barrister had written that she used Tarot cards, the Ombudsman would not have challenged it.
On or about 20th December 2016, the Ombudsman provided to the customer the evidence bundle of all the documents which had been forwarded to them by Bolt, Burdon, Kemp. That bundle did not include the instructions sent to the barrister.
A representative of Bolt Burdon Kemp, on 29th March 2019, wrote to the customer: “However for ease of reference, I enclose a further copy of these instructions which clearly show that the Terms and Conditions … were provided to the barrister … together with full copies of all documentation provided by you in your original action.” This was the first time the customer had seen these.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the 2008 Terms and Conditions were in the bundle which was sent to the barrister. On the contrary there is evidence of “suppression” of these instructions until 2019, and failure to send relevant documents to the Ombudsman. Both of these fall into the realm of the criminal and are being referred to the Solicitor Regulatory Authority and/or the police.
The Ombudsman originally investigated the complaint against the firm BBK, and decided that there were grounds for reporting their behaviour to the SRA: The Ombudsman wrote:
I am dealing with, or have dealt with, a complaint involving the above named authorised legal professional under the Ombudsman scheme set out in Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007. I am of the opinion that their conduct should be reported to the Authorising Body to consider whether it wishes to take action against them.
Possible misconduct under S.143 of the LSA 2007 Instructed to give view on the prospects of success of litigation against former barrister. When new barrister was asked for her view the advice was negative and the firm advised that they could not act under CFA. Mr Lamford threatened to “sue” both the firm and the barrister in an email and the solicitor forwarded this email to the barrister concerned without authority.

The charge of about £1200 was reasonable and was indeed refunded, but the advice was poor and based on incorrect information.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 2   Thumbs down 4

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.

terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
45273 solicitor reviews

5,778,306 page views