1 reviews (2/5) and information for Singletons Austin Ryder, Enfield

26/02/20 - Response by Singletons Austin Ryder

We are sorry to hear this person’s experience of using our firm was not satisfactory to them. We must however correct some of the inaccuracies in this review. Firstly, whereas Peter refers to “we” throughout the complaint, we in fact only ever had one single client at a time. Peter was initially our client, alone, and instructed our Mr. Clement to pursue a litigation matter on his behalf against a family member. Mr. Clement spent time taking full details of the case, the history and the factual surroundings of the dispute. Mr. Clement then prepared instructions for specialist counsel to advise on the merits of the dispute and that advice was not favourable to Peter’s case and suggested he had no cause of action of chance of success against the family member in question and that in fact it would need to be Peter’s mother that pursued the claim. Mr. Clement then left our firm for personal reasons having been with us for in excess of five years. His departure was not unplanned or unexpected. There was a notice period just over one month and files were handed over with full notes. Mr. Doganci was then employed to replace Mr. Clement. Peter than asked to meet with Mr. Doganci, along with his mother, to further the case. That meeting was arranged and it was made clear to Peter that any instructions would need to come from his mother alone as she would be our client and not Peter. Peter and his mother were advised that if Peter’s mother wanted to instruct us we would have to cease acting for Peter and only act for his mother. Mr. Doganci then met with Peter’s mother (alone) and took instructions from her. He then sought advice from the same specialist counsel who advised that on the basis of the information obtained from Peter’s mother at that meeting we would have a conflict of interests if we were to act for Peter’s mother and therefore could not do so. We were still willing and able to act for Peter but given he had no chance of success there was little merit in doing so

Respond   Report abuse

04/03/20 - Response by Peter

The reply from the firm to the review is somewhat surreal. The first time they have apologised is when they have seen a negative review about the way the case was poorly handled by this firm. The firm is also in breach of confidentiality about the case they were dealing with because they have publicly broadcast parts of the case and discussions online. So any opposing party can read what happened!?! Instead of making reference to the case by using some form of discretion and some decency to their ex-client, that spent a lot of money with this firm, ending up with no case or representation. They decided to challenge and offer their side, albeit out of their obligation to confidentiality.! This is not a response that highlights any of the proper conduct expected, they are attempting to justify a poorly handled case. The firm's approach could have been to keep working with one of the clients as they are still cooperating to push on with the case together with another law firm. The fact is that proper support and guidance was lacking from this firm and as their response shows became defensive, unwilling to accept that they lacked any support strategy and happy to just drop clients because of their unaccountability.

Respond   Report abuse