11 reviews (2/5) and information for Slee Blackwell Solicitors LLP, Taunton

20/02/26 - Reviewed by James

Very poor first impression. I received a callback from their Tiverton office after an initial email enquiry. I asked a simple question about whether they offered a free initial consultation, and the person I spoke to was abrupt and dismissive. She said “no” with no explanation, followed by silence, making me feel uncomfortable. When I ended the call politely, she put the phone down on me. When I called back to highlight how rude this was, she incorrectly claimed I had hung up.

For important matters like probate, basic courtesy and professionalism should be expected. Based on this experience, I would not feel comfortable using this firm.

Was this review helpful?  
26   29

Respond   Report abuse

25/01/26 - Reviewed by J

Review #2. The response to my first review needs addressing. It is astounding that such people who are commissioned at over £800 an hour including VAT and uplift fee, could willingly be so inaccurate; their only agenda to undermine my credibility, and thus my review#1. Should they have applied themselves to represent my interests with such vigour, then the situation may well have been very different. It is appalling to suggest I did not follow their advice against challenging the validity of a will. I never challenged the formal validity of a will. They never challenged any wills either. I did not go against their advice as they did not provide any advice in this regard … The comments regarding I would have achieved more at mediation, should I have followed their advice is also staggeringly at variance with the truth. They were not involved in such parallel proceedings, and I was not defending any part8 claim save for any costs. The adjournments I had to make in those proceedings were on medical grounds, and acknowledged as made with merit by the judge. The costs that were applied thereafter, were not only unjust but subsequently went on to form an appeal against the same. Meanwhile, however, the “advice “I was provided by HC, in particular, at Slee Blackwell was that any debts I had, whatever and however they were incurred, legally and legitimately formed part of my inheritance act claim. As such, therefore, they would be considered and agreed as part of any settlement. However, it now transpires following mediation, where I was literally bullied by CH of SB, and his carefully chosen barrister (also a personal friend), to accept the offer made at settlement on the basis that the cost orders that would be taken care of/settled by the other side, with my agreement to withdraw my appeal, or face Slee Blackwell charging me £87,000 in costs without any settlement, (which they have continued to refuse to provide a breakdown for, or a final invoice), the debt was ACTUALLY was deducted from my settlement (AS IF I agreed to its legitimate existence and/or amount!; while, meanwhile, I expeditiously withdrew my appeal). This is what they state as having taken their advice … that I would have achieve more at settlement! The debt transpires to have been agreed ‘out of’ my settlement???? A further insult to a client, they were charging over at £800 an hour, with me, the client, having already frequently picking up their slack, as partly addressed in my previous review.

Indeed, when presented with the “settlement agreement” to sign at mediation, all online, I have been provided evidence that I had received it at 8:14 pm, sent back to the mediator, then onto other side ,and signed by them and uploaded all
by 8:20 pm – demonstrating the lack of time I was provided to understand the terms of the “settlement agreement”, not that this particular part is mentioned in these terms (and they refused to provide any evidence to the contrary). They also spun the mediation out to last for 10.5 hours to increase fees (keeping me waiting while chatting rubbish between Holten&Bryden (counsel). All while they knew I was nursing a very seriously ill and elderly dog, who passed several hours later!

Also, to correct their reply further, their “advice” they claim to have provided me on challenging their costs, was to to accept an immediate £10k reduction, or take them to the High Court for a detailed cost assessment, and should the judge find in my favour less than 20%, they would pursue me for their own high legal costs likely to be encouraged to be greater than the £10k they would by then have withdrawn. So, until I should issue any of these proceedings, they refused, and continue to refuse to provide any detailed breakdown, or any breakdown, or any final invoice. This appears to be rather common in no win no fee cases and, quite frankly, is all part of what I now consider to be a money spinner lacking sincere transparency and CH is no exception.

As per my previous review, I identified duplications of work across the two files for my late mother and then stepfather, and many inconsistencies including a phone call they claim to have made to me for three hours 42 minutes - Charging £3200 - With no attendance note to support it on the file. Moreover, on the day and in question I was with my daughter in a Paris Museum with her all of that day. Only when they thought I might issue proceedings against them for their cost, did they reply to this discrepancy which by, then, saying it had been misrepresented on a previous breakdown I had obtained from them, and should have read attendance on the file; however, there is still no attendance note for the three hours 42 minutes they allegedly spent on one file! And, no SAR request upheld (with copious excuses as to why delivery failed…). I expect, therefore, the reasons for refusing to provide a detailed breakdown, or a complete or any SAR, is that it would incriminate their own stance so wilfully executed.

I am also told that getting upset having to chase them constantly, pick up their slack, the promised work they never did on many issues, and getting upset and distressed following the passing of my mother, and the ordeal with a treacherous step family for over 45 years, including getting upset and frustrated by their failures to progress matters, requiring FOUR time extensions, that this is the reason the cost was so high. Not their responsibility, but mine! Again, should any of that be true, then should they not have done the work they promised to do it in the first place? I would’ve had no need to chase them up at all. I was told I had a strong case but I learn in their reply to my first review, I didn’t! Sneaky. They made copious mistakes on a letter of claim, which I had to remind them of their errors which had to be corrected several times – yet they charge me for their errors, repeatedly. CH, in particular, the equity partner then put in charge of this case to steer it in the financial direction the firm required, has gone onto criticise my “stance “on the case. I do not know why he would be surprised at any client getting particularly upset and cross with their conduct. They were already aware, of the gross abuse I had suffered throughout with the family, and the deceit I had been shown resulting in a claim at all. Holten in particular lacked any compassion just eyes on my late mother’s money! They were also aware I am diagnosed with complex PTSD as a result yet, they ploughed ahead and disregarded anything other than enhancing their financial position (taking 58% of their inflated and unjustified ‘costs’ of what they tried to push through which has now shown to demonstrate a gross lack of transparency. Understandably, then, I am also suspicious, they had negotiations with the other side’s solicitors/counsel that suited more of their agenda than my case. Now I am faced with a shortfall of at least £37k of my settlement, which they refuse to deal with unless I pay them more money! They also knew, full well, any settlement below the figure required to extend a lease on a property (which fell £53k short), would be insufficient to proceed with a purchase of a suitable property for myself, and would render the settlement almost futile on the basis that it would need to be spent on rent leaving me with £0 in around five years, and living in insecure rented accommodation. They represented their own interests and not mine! That had been part of my instructions, and agreed with Slee Blackwell for the reasons above. Not only did they go against my instructions, they tricked me into believing the debts had been ‘erased’/‘satisfied’ by the other side, in order to persuade me to withdraw my appeal against the debts incurred by them! They are also not budging on their spuriously increased costs up to £87,000 just to get it to mediation … When they delayed the case by 18 months at least through the serial incompetence of not meeting the strict time limitations 4 times! Leaving me with the criticism despite having promptly provided them with all the information they had required at all times.

Accordingly, then, the reply to my first review is grossly inaccurate. Interestingly, it does not address the other issues I raised. I have evidence for each and every aspect of my now two reviews. Also, I am led to believe by an independent source. I am not the only client to be deeply upset by the conduct of this firm, and their aggressive and rude manner should you dare to call them out. Other reviews here and elsewhere are sadly unsurprising.

When I thought this matter was finally concluded, and I could be away from these people, who have made this matter so so much worse, I am having to instruct other solicitors to deal with Slee Blackwell‘s conduct. ????????

Was this review helpful?  
30   29

Respond   Report abuse

02/01/24 - Reviewed by Turned away.

Is their abuse department selectively unresponsive? Last year, my relative, who is a survivor of abuse within the system, sought help from this firm. Unfortunately, they showed no interest whatsoever and rejected providing assistance. This experience has led me to believe that their abuse department is inadequate and ineffective. Therefore, if you are an abuse survivor, I advise against approaching them for help.

Was this review helpful?  
105   76

Respond   Report abuse

23/02/22 - Reviewed by Profit over people by any means necessary

I entered a CFA with a solicitor 13.12.16
The solicitor advised me my claim was worth more than £25,000 and would be a multitrack claim.
The solicitor issued protective proceedings with a value of £5,000 - £10,000. They amended the claim form to £50,000 with red pen only before solicitor service approximately 3-4 months later.
The claim was provisionally allocated to the fast track 17.07.18. Direction questionnaires were exchanged with both parties agreeing to a multi track allocation.
At a CCMC the solicitor informed the Judge my claim was worth upto £100,000 (did not inform me). A budget was agreed between the parties of £86,237.30. My solicitor was told by Judge Gore QC to cure their abuse of process, pay the relevant Court fee and amend the value of claim on particulars and claim form. They failed to do this.
My solicitor terminated the CFA on short notice of a one day fast track trial (03.07.19) after incurring £79,000 of irrecoverable costs without my informed consent (E07YX970)
The solicitor was removed from the Court record and the HHJJ Carr allocated my claim to the multitrack. I had to pay another solicitor £48,5000 to complete my claim as the defendant DHL Supply Chain insisted on contesting the claim at Trial without consideration of ADR settlement.
My claim was ill prepared but nevertheless I was awarded £7,000 after a 3 day contested multi track hearing.
My former solicitor then issued a Part 8 Solicitor client assessment (G90EX002) application pursuant to s.70 Solicitors Act without disclosure of a statutory invoice. Beware - Predators.

Was this review helpful?  
117   92

Respond   Report abuse

07/09/20 - Reviewed by Michael Moffatt

Complete waste of time. After three years, they dropped my case because one of the men who abused me was already in prison and had no assets. I was never trying to sue him, I was suing Essex county council because I was in care and abused by four men whilst there. I even had to inform them that Norfolk police had sat on the case for 15 months without even looking at it. They did practically no work on the case at all.

Was this review helpful?  
102   112

Respond   Report abuse