8 reviews and information for Hugh James, Hodge House, 114-116 St. Mary Street, Cardiff

Home > UK Solicitor > Cardiff > Hugh James

How to find us

Hodge House, 114-116 St. Mary Street, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, CF10 1DY

Other branches


Languages spoken English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Turkish, Welsh 
Size of firm 171 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.


Reviews

Add review

Summary

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

Legal services at this branch

  • Administrative and public law
  • Advocacy
  • Agriculture
  • Aviation
  • Banking
  • Benefits and allowances
  • Charities
  • Children
  • Clinical negligence
  • Commercial litigation
  • Commercial property
  • Company and commercial
  • Construction
  • Consumer
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Corporate finance
  • Crime - fraud
  • Crime - general
  • Debt and bankruptcy - personal
  • Debt recovery
  • Dispute resolution - civil mediation
  • Dispute resolution - commercial mediation
  • Education
  • Employment
  • Environment
  • Family - general
  • Human rights
  • Information Technology
  • Insolvency and restructuring - business
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual property
  • Landlord and tenant - residential
  • Licensing gaming and betting
  • Litigation - general
  • Media
  • entertainment and sport
  • Mental health
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Neighbour disputes
  • Personal injury
  • Planning
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - trusts
  • Private client - Wills
  • Professional negligence
  • Tax


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Compiled from data from the Legal Ombudsman website

25/06/18

Outcome: Failure to reply, Fee - General - Fee Information Deficient
To apologise, To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Legal Ombudsman website

25/06/18

Outcome: Failure to reply, Fee - General - Fee Information Deficient
To apologise, To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Legal Ombudsman website

13/02/18

Outcome: Costs information deficient, Failure to advise
To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused, To refund fees already paid

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Legal Ombudsman website

13/02/18

Outcome: Costs information deficient, Failure to advise
To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused, To refund fees already paid

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

13/11/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/641999.article?Decision=2017-11-13

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

Agreed outcome

1.1. Sophie Harris, a former employee of Hugh James, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



(a) to the SRA making an order under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) in relation to Sophie Harris that, from the date of this agreement:



(i) no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his practice as a solicitor;

(ii) no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with a solicitor's practice;

(iii) no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her;

(iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;

(v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body, and;

(vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit her to have an interest in the body;

except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.



(b) to the publication of this agreement, and;

(c) she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



Summary of Facts

2.1. Miss Harris was employed by Hugh James between 25 April 2016 and 14 June 2017 in an administrative role.

2.2. In around May/June 2017, she applied for a bank account with First Direct. She was asked to supply the bank with a certified copy of a change of name deed owing to her change of name as a child.

2.3. Miss Harris stamped a copy of the change of name deed with a Hugh James certification stamp and signed the document in the name of Mr K, an assistant solicitor at Hugh James.

2.4. Mr K was contacted by First Direct and asked if he had signed the certified copy of the change of name deed. He confirmed he had not signed the document.

2.5. Miss Harris was suspended from her employment whilst Hugh James investigated.

2.6. When asked for an explanation Miss Harris initially suggested that another colleague had signed the change of name deed.

2.7. When questioned further she admitted she had signed the document but only to check that Mr K?s signature would fit the box, prior to asking him to sign it. Miss Harris said she subsequently forgot to ask Mr K to sign the document and submitted the copy she had signed to First Direct.

2.8. Miss Harris resigned from Hugh James during her suspension.

Admissions

3.1. Sophie Harris admits that her conduct set out above was dishonest.

Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

4.1. The SRA and Sophie Harris agree that a Section 43 Order is appropriate because:



(a) she is not a solicitor;

(b) by virtue of her employment or remuneration at Hugh James, she was involved in a legal practice;

(c) by signing the document in the name of Mr K and subsequently attempting to conceal this conduct from her employers, she has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice such that it is undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice.



4.2. Her conduct makes it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice because:



(a) it was dishonest and therefore demonstrates that she may take advantage of the trust the public and others place in solicitors and those who work in a solicitors practice for her own benefit.

(b) her attempt to conceal or misrepresent the position when the matter was investigated indicates a lack of understanding on her part of the serious nature of her actions and is a further sign that she lacks the integrity required to work in a legal practice.



4.3. Miss Harris has admitted her conduct to the SRA and has not sought to put forward any mitigation in relation to her actions.

4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1. Miss Harris agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying responsibility for the conduct referred to above.

Costs

6.1. Miss Harris agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

The date of this Agreement is 13 November 2017.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

02/11/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/200480.article?Decision=2017-05-27

Outcome: Condition
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



The Adjudicator has decided to impose the following conditions on Mr O'Maoileoin's current practising certificate:



Mr O'Maoileoin shall not be a manager or owner of any authorised body or any authorised non-SRA firm.

Subject to the above condition, Mr O'Maoileoin shall only practise as a solicitor in employment which has first been approved in writing by the SRA.

Mr O'Maoileoin shall not act as compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) or compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) for any authorised body or head of legal practice (HOLP) or head of finance and administration (HOFA) in any authorised non-SRA firm.

The first and third condition shall be effective from the date of notification of this decision. The second condition shall be effective 28 days from the date of notification of this decision.

This decision shall be published.





Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

27/05/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/200480.article?Decision=2017-05-27

Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

Outcome of SDT Hearing

This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

The matter was heard on 16 February 2018.

Mr.O?Maoileoin was Struck Off the Roll.

The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

12/09/16

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/631577.article?Decision=2016-09-12

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



In the matter of Luke David Kendal of Pant, Merthyr Tydfil, a person who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor.

The Facts

On 11 March 2015, at Cardiff Magistrates' Court, Mr Kendal was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 8 June 2015, Mr Kendal was convicted in the same court of wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm. The former offence is contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the latter offence is contrary to Section 20 of the same Act. Mr Kendal was sentenced to terms of detention for these two convictions at the Crown Court in Cardiff on 25 June 2015.

Finding

We find that Luke David Kendal is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has been convicted of criminal offences which are such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

Order

To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Luke David Kendal of this decision:



(i) no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor;

(ii) no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;

(iii) no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

(iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

(v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

(vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body



except in accordance with a Society permission.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

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
FAQ
21310 solicitor reviews

3,470,748 page views