The firm failed to satisfactorily document the deceased's wishes, omitted to document a wish list in respect of a trust and had ambiguous wording in the will. This resulted in one trust being distributed in a way which was not how the deceased wished it to be distributed. THIS IS THE KEY DETAIL - A CLIENT FOR SEVERAL DECADES, WHO HAD SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS FOR LEGAL ADVICE, SETTING UP TRUSTS AND DRAWING UP A WILL DID NOT HAVE HIS WISHES FOLLOWED AND ADHERED TO AFTER HIS DEATH!!
Because the 3 trustees were disputing the distribution, the matter was not resolved until 5 years and 10 months after the death, which resulted in excessive fees being charged. It caused so much stress that one trustee resigned. It was obvious that the firm was favouring one trustee over the others, (the trustee who didn’t want to follow the deceased wishes, over the trustees who were trying to follow the wishes) and the deceased client’s instructions seemed to come secondary to the favoured trustee.
Communications were difficult to read and keep track of because emails were sent sometimes with information in the email body and sometimes with letter attachments.
The initial solicitor dealing with the matter had not completed all their exams in Trusts before being given the matter to deal with (this information was publicly visible on Facebook, where the solicitor appeared to spend a considerable amount of time). Often when emailing, this solicitor used incorrect names; particularly when referring to the deceased, repeated herself and didn’t seem to cope well with details.
When a different solicitor was consulted to prepare purely factual documentation to instruct Counsel, high level documentation was provided with partial facts and an element of opinion which illustrated a complete lack of impartiality and could be seen to lead Counsel towards the favoured trustee’s view.
When concerns were raised part way through the process, they were neither rectified nor followed up.
The delay in resolving the matter caused significant ongoing stress and significant personal financial cost.
Final statements were inconsistent and incomplete. There was also incorrect allocation of fees between the estate and trusts.
It was completely unsatisfactory how this matter was dealt with and I would not recommend anyone to use this firm.
