document outlining the decision of the Panel and the reasons for the decision. We consider this to be a proportionate approach to take.
In regard to comment 3 all Panel members have access to the Fitness to Practice Procedures Manual which provides guidance to Panel members when formulating reasons. Reasons are provided in all cases.
28. Are there any further comments which you wish to make?
1. I initiated correspondence by email, so IPS simply followed by lead. However, having had a very helpful conversation towards the end of my dealings with ILEX, I probably should have called at the beginning. Maybe IPS could put a call in at the start of the process to introduce themselves ‘in person’ as well as sending an email?
2. These comments were not made on a survey but sent in a separate email: ‘Due to the unsatisfactory experience endured by the alleged ‘ILEX Legal procedures of investigations’, I consider that the IPS feedback questionnaire is not only annoying repetitive, ineffectively and confusingly worded, but a complete waste of time and energy to attempt to reply.
With respect to the decisions by the apparently unknown qualified standard of a legal panel, who appeared to have ignored and made no reasonable or qualified reference to, or reflected on, the admitted, confessed and documentary proof of improper practices and misconduct as a member of the public I have no faith or completed and sent to the Professional Conduct Panel within six months implementation of your organisations Code of Conduct.
It is clear that the complicated and protracted procedures and policies of the various stages of the alleged professional investigation leaves much to be desired. Completed and sent to the Professional Conduct Panel within six months based on admissions and documentary evidence to the law society,
together with other public legal officers admitted and proven improper practices. As the above information and comments relate somewhat to your questionnaire, please refrain from sending me any further letters or communications from your unconvincing professional organisation.
3. In the light of my experience in a case already heavily criticised by a High Court judge, the [C]ILEx procedure proved hopefully inadequate.
IPS comments/learning points:
We have increased our telephone communication with complainants to increase our approachability for complainants.
It is unfortunate when a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of an investigation. We have procedures in place which are followed in all cases to ensure that the investigation is transparent and targeted at the allegation made. This complainant was given numerous opportunities to provide responses and comments on the evidence and on the responses provided to the member. The complainant was also provided with numerous opportunities to provide additional evidence. The correspondence seeking these requests for information was presented to the Professional Conduct Panel who then made their decision. We are only able to put forward the evidence that it has gathered from the parties during the investigation procedure.
We are unable to re-examine court proceedings or court decisions. We are only able to investigate a breach of the code of conduct. Where there is no evidence provided to support the complaints We are only able to put to the Professional Conduct Panel information that has been provided. Where evidence is obtained that the Court may have been misled by a party the correct forum to raise it is with the original Court that made the decision. We unfortunately cannot make decisions in order to support court action.
Professional standards for specialist lawyers 39
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42