5 reviews (3/5) and information for Schofield Sweeney LLP, Bradford
How to find us
Church Bank House, Church Bank, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD1 4DY
Languages spoken English, French, Punjabi, Urdu
Size of firm 38 solicitors
Are you this solicitor?
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information
2755 page views
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.
Legal services at this branch
- Administrative and public law
- Commercial litigation
- Commercial property
- Company and commercial
- Conveyancing - residential
- Corporate finance
- Crime - general
- Debt and bankruptcy - personal
- Debt recovery
- Dispute resolution - civil mediation
- Dispute resolution - commercial mediation
- Financial services
- Information Technology
- Insolvency and restructuring - business
- Intellectual property
- Landlord and tenant - residential
- Licensing gaming and betting
- Litigation - general
- Mergers and acquisitions
- Neighbour disputes
- Private client - Probate
- Private client - trusts
- Private client - Wills
- Professional negligence
20/03/20 - Reviewed by Nirmala Bhogal
I can honestly say that Iain Gardner has been wonderful throughout my conveyancing. Not only is he responsive, professional and patient, he makes time to talk to you and works with your best interests at heart. Plus we completed in a record 5 weeks despite COVID 19.
Great firm to work with. Highly recommend.
28/06/19 - Reviewed by Dinah Jones
After waiting 3 months for the completion of a commercial contract I had to cancel the work with Schofield Sweeney.
At the first month stage I managed to dodge signing a property contract that was not in my interest.
At the two month stage they had not even got my correct name on the contract (it was of an unknown company) , three different dates where quoted and the points throughout the contract did not line up. Difficult to contact throughout and very stressful.
At the three month stage there was still no offer made to pull all and any stops out and help me to get the business of my dreams.
General Legal advice
24/04/18 - Reviewed by Anonymous
the service did not satisfy me. at first, I dealt with a brilliant woman that worked there but after she left the company it was very difficult for the subsequent solicitor do follow up on the case. I waited 4 weeks to get the reports, contracts etc sent to me to sign and when I did received them, they made a complete mess of the addresses. my address was wrong, the address of the property that I was going to purchase was wrong. when I pointed this out, they said I should just correct it (which to me is unprofessional to just write over it with a pen). these are legal documents and should not be taken easily... in the end I convinced them to send me new contracts to sign. won't be recommending them any time soon or using them again.
Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
1.1. Mr Simon Paul Glazebrook was a director and solicitor at Progeny Private Law (the Firm). Mr Glazebrook agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):
(a) he is rebuked.
(b) to the publication of this agreement.
(c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.
Summary of Facts
2.1. At the Firm's Christmas party on 9 December 2016 Mr Glazebrook, whilst intoxicated, behaved in an inappropriate, physical manner towards a female employee.
2.2. The Firm investigated the matter and Mr Glazebrook offered an apology to the employee for his actions at the party.
2.3. Mr Glazebrook resigned from the Firm on 20 December 2016. The firm made the report to the SRA on 3 February 2017.
2.4. Following Mr Glazebrook's departure from the Firm, three additional employees at the Firm reported comments made previously by Mr Glazebrook which they considered to be inappropriate.
3.1. Mr Glazebrook makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:
(a) that by behaving in an inappropriate, physical manner towards the female employee at the Christmas party; and
(b) that by having previously made comments to three additional employees at the Firm which they considered inappropriate;
Mr Glazebrook has breached Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:
(a) his conduct was reckless
(b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest, and
(c) his conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Glazebrook and the following mitigation which he has put forward:
(a) he has apologised to the female employee and his colleagues for his behaviour at the Christmas party, is remorseful and promptly accepted that his conduct was inappropriate
(b) he is remorseful and accepted that the comments made previously to the three additional employees at the firm were inappropriate. He offers an apology to those individuals for the offence he caused them
(c) he has sought professional support, has taken, and continues to take various steps to modify his behaviour for the future
(d) he has cooperated fully with the SRA, and
(e) he has a clear regulatory history.
4.3. 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. Mr Glazebrook agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.
5.2. If Mr Glazebrook acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.
6.1. Mr Glazebrook agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.
19/05/10 - Reviewed by Anonymous
I have introduced several businesses to Chris Schofield over the years. His firm have always delivered an excellent service, and I have only had good reports back from my clients. They adopt a common sense approach to businesses, and have proved extremely efficient.
Subscribe to updates
Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.
- All solicitors in Bradford
- Conveyancing / property solicitors Bradford
- Personal injury solicitors Bradford
- Commercial solicitors Bradford
- Divorce solicitors Bradford
- Family solicitors Bradford
- Legal aid solicitors Bradford
- Immigration solicitors Bradford
- Driving solicitors Bradford
- Will and probate solicitors Bradford
- Criminal solicitors Bradford
- Medical negligence solicitors Bradford
- Employment law solicitors Bradford
4,049,960 page views