A Special Relationship

Special Relationship

Now the Americans have been quick to say that the Special Relationship between the US and Britain will remain unchanged, it’s a good time to discuss special relationships in general.

Recently, the Legal Beagles forum has seen the birth of a number of Official Company reps. They can be found amongst the Site Leaders, here: Show groups. Most of them belong to Howlett Clarke, which is not surprising, in view of the fact that a couple of LB Site Team members joined that firm three years ago, to start a new consumer credit practice area within the firm.

Sites like MSE have had official reps for years, however, LB only had one, the Vodafone rep, for a number of years. The Legal Ombudsman will, no doubt, be very useful, should anyone have complaints about solicitors they have instructed, although we don’t see many such cases on LB. Most posters seem to be after free legal advice without the need to instruct a solicitor.

The role of the reps is unclear. With the Vodafone rep, he is there to try and help people having issues with the company. Vodafone is a company whose services are used by millions so there’s bound to be a few. The role of the law firm reps would have to be substantially different. Are they there to post advice on threads? That could be tricky, because anything posted by them could be construed as advice being given on behalf of the firm, if they are there in an official capacity.

Are they there to take referrals from the site team? If so, that could still be done privately. Is anyone allowed to freely refer to any of them, since they are official reps, it would appear to be the case, yet there isn’t a single referral that can be seen to any of them, on any thread. Are people referring to them by PM? It looks like that’s not allowed, there is a warning in red against it, although there’s no telling how long that has been there or what prompted it. One would think that personal recommendations by well established members should be allowed, but not spam. A difficult one to get right.

Report PMs

Most people are probably not aware of the presence of the reps, nor would they know why they are there if no-one tells them. One would think an announcement, guidance or mention should have been made somewhere, explaining why they are there and what they can do. One thing that was quite loudly announced was Celestine’s successes in setting aside statutory demands. These days, hardly anyone issues them, presumably due to the birth of the FCA, however, the announcement is still there, loud and proud. It’s a bit intriguing, because Celestine’s signature no longer says she works for Howlett Clarke,  she had previously been on maternity leave, nor does she appear amongst the HC reps. She’s not featured under “our people” on the Howlett Clarke website either: Our People.

SDs announcement

One also has to wonder where all this Howlett Clarke promotion fits in with LB Compare. If law firms are going to pay to be featured on the site, they’d hardly want to see HC having “right of first refusal” so to speak. They may well choose one of the many alternatives where no particular firm is given preference.


  1. BillK says:

    It is indeed strange to see that Howlett Clarke now suddenly have no less than 5 official representatives with Legal Beagles, whilst the poor forum members are being given advice that is so bad as to be clearly dangerous:- http://www.legalallsorts.co.uk/op-loses-in-court-and-gets-ccj/

    The LB Site Team are fully aware of the quality of this advice, as they are fully aware of Legal Allsorts’ own commentary on it – yet they have done nothing to stop the poor LB member from losing in court and receiving a CCJ against them. Their negligence is clearly displayed by Site Owner Amethyst, who (apparently) wasn’t even aware of the court hearing, and posted “Bugger – was it today ? Good luck.” That post says it all, really – doesn’t it ?

    I can’t see Howlett Clarke from benefitting by placing 5 reps in an advice forum that knowingly allows this atrocious behaviour to continue unchecked under their very noses. Who would trust a law firm that associates itself – five-fold – with such dangerous ineptitude ?

    Madame Briscoe also appears to be masquerading as a litigation executive with the very same firm of solicitors who share her vicarious guilt regarding the above court shambles. That won’t go down well with the Law Society or the SRA, will it ?

    “A special relationship” seems too fine a phrase to apply to this particular scenario involving Beagles and Howletts, when the word “dogging” might be more appropriate. Clearly, both parties to this sordid ‘act of union’ have no concern whatsoever for the plights of their clients and dependants, and are simply ‘gang-banging’ for their own ends with no conscience whatsoever. ‘Tis said “We are judged by the company we keep” – and Howlett Clarke stand to be so judged, whether it be rightly or wrongly.

  2. Interested Party says:

    Everyone knows that ‘Reps’ are only as good as the work they bring in or the work that comes to them, judging by the state of LBCompare and of course LB itself, there is no good work, sadly these ‘Reps’ stand to lose a hell of a lot including their good name and reputations.
    My advice to them is get out of there quick before dear old Amethyst/Sharon shouts again ….. Bugger, I forgot.

  3. Revenge says:

    I thought that Madam Briscoe had left HC after her new baby….. If she still works with them it is very seriously floored if they are digging into LB as well as there compare company whatever it is now called.

    Just hoping that HC knows exactly what they are doing if they don’t someone will definitely let the authorities know.

    • Mark says:

      If you woke up every morning and saw Jules lying next to you, wouldn’t you want to shout? The blokes hardly an oil painting is he?

      Perhaps she thinks that if she shouts loud enough, that rich owner (forget his name) will chuck a few grand her way. I don’t know why but I keep likening the whole set up to the Profumo affair for some reason.

    • Agent 99 says:

      The statutory demand thread where she provided her HC details appears to have been removed, no doubt as a result of this post. It was there for three years, now it’s gone in three days, it can’t be a coincidence. The Beagles obviously read these posts and take appropriate action.

  4. BillK says:

    “…I keep likening the whole set up to the Profumo affair for some reason. ” Yes – ‘you would think that, wouldn’t you ?’ – LOL.

    @ Revenge – As I understand it, Madame Briscoe took maternity leave from HC and was asked not to return. Whether that is accurate or not is of no importance, as the truth clearly appears to mean little to her or her cohorts…

    …Because she still purports to be employed by them in some Legal Beagles threads – unless she has now hastily fixed that glaring ‘error,’ whilst no doubt muttering the new Beagles motto “Bugger – I forgot !” And this farce is all being played out under the very noses of no less than 5 Howlett Clarke ‘representatives’ – and also a ‘representative’ of the Legal Ombudsman, no less.

  5. Mark says:

    A bit of worthless information for you-She has often been misquoted, the actual statement she made in court was: “well he would, wouldn’t he?”

    I think the Profumo” affair was the wrong description to re-phrase, the “Spoon” reminds me of Stephen Ward.

  6. BillK says:

    As usual, the Barely-Legal Beagles are relying on what is posted here to patch up the rotting old hulk that has clearly been abandoned by its former owners. After prompting from Agent 99, I’m sure that Madame Briscoe will submit the now ubiquitous LB defence of “Oh Bugger – I forgot” if asked why she continued to pretend to be a Litigation Executive employed by Howlett-Clarke all this time. The squalid pretence that is LBcompare is built upon such neglect and abandonment, and has about as much credence as ‘Honest John’s’ used car sales in the derelict plot next door. Get real, Kate & Shaz – to be good liars, you need to have good memories – and you guys are useless.

    I’m glad you saw my oblique mis-quote, Mark – “Well, you would, wouldn’t you ?”
    Wikipedia also reckons that the abbrevo ‘MRDA’ is an accepted reference to Mandy’s fabled riposte, I believe.
    “At least poor Stephen Ward…
    had some guts to impale on his sword.” [anon]

  7. Flaming Parrot says:

    Very interesting to see all these authorised reps officially on board and those who post on behalf of those firms. A lot of questions to be asked. Are they aware of everything that has been going on? Not just what’s posted up on here. Haven’t got much time at the moment to go through everything but things like concerns and dangerous dogs come to mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *