At
the time of writing this I haven't heard what the outcome of Henry Hendron's
latest Bar Standards Board Tribunal sitting today.
25
July 2019 10:00
What I did hear
today from Hendron's own lips [taken verbatim from his copious notes sat on his
side of the tribunal meeting room] was I had, over the course of 3 years
dedicated myself to make his life as difficult as possible. He "knew" that I had deliberately
and wittingly schemed to ensure that, despite his best efforts, he would wind
up in the Tribunal chambers facing charges
of Professional misconduct contrary Core Duty 5 and Rule rC71 of the Bar
Standards Board
He "knew"
this to be the case and he was here to prove that what he knew about that was
100% correct.
What struck me as
odd immediately was that in my interaction with Hendron as my Public Access
Barrister, despite my telling him about the matter detailing its intricacies,
they didn't act as instructed. This in
turn led to the complaint that started this particular episode of the ball
rolling which Hendron claimed as a defence; that they were never told/did not
know my goals in instructing him and
he did nothing wrong. So effectively
Hendron was saying he didn't know my mind and therefore no blame could be
attached to him. So in 2015/2016 despite
interactions with them and their offices Hendron did not know what I wanted or
was aiming to achieve, after that with no interactions Hendron knew precisely
my thoughts, aims and ambitions.
Secondly he knew
this whole 'episode' creation was my fault and was prepared in the public forum
of the tribunal to libel and slander me and, [if I am honest based on his
previously penning intimidatory
tweets & posting them ] frighten me because it was he who was the
victim not me [and as his brother would later threaten in order to subjugate
me/my rightful claims]. He demonstrated
his belief in this fantasy of his by confirming that he had indeed not returned
monies to me along with the additional, nominal compensation, because he didn't
want to. All of this, he repeatedly
stated, was for various reasons all of which should induce pity and empathy. It did prove confusing as the various reasons
he gave he often contradicted themselves and where there was a similar
opportunity to feel empathetic of someone other than himself, Hendron chose to
ignore or make denouncements.
I was asked to
attend as witness and stayed out of the chamber until called to do so. I was asked to confirm my statement as being
true and accurate and of my own making; which I did. So far so manageable. I was asked to address my responses to the
bench on my left despite the questions coming from the right which is
completely alien. I was unprepared for
the third question delivered by Hendron regarding an e-mail
of 24/06/2018 in which he dictated undertakings around the repayment of my
monies (outstanding since May 2016). In
this Hendron sought to defend himself from his failure to repay saying I should
sue him for non-payment if his cheque is not cashed within a specified time and
he would consider the repayment incumbent on him waived should I not do
so. I say his actions are fraud. That he is a debtor, a debtor who ignores the
Legal Ombudsman directive and a debtor who repeatedly bounces cheques. Bouncing cheques is, I believe, fraud.
This behaviour is
acceptable judging by the actions of this public access barrister who invites
the public to see why he has been suspended by googling him.
When I contacted him
on 2 discrete matters none of the details of his drug lifestyle was in the
public domain. There was no easy way to
find details of his past brushes with the BSB;
all that was found was a website that showed he was allowed to take public
access cases, he was passionate about looking after his clients and providing
them with the very best legal services.
His testimonials gave cause to suggest ability and just what was needed
for the case - solicitor N had corroborated false information made by their
opposition solicitor to be deliberately supportive of the opposition and
withheld/falsely stated a judge's pronouncements. Solicitor N acted this way to prevent their
own client reclaiming costs from their opponent [contrary to SRA Code of
conduct].
What Hendron did
was, to my detriment, and as far removed from his promises as it was possible
to be. The result of his
unprofessionalism and absenteeism was that Hendron did not perform the services
he was paid to, for court someone having to be drafted in to fill the breach
and the surplus funds Hendron wanting to keep because the three things he likes
are 1] himself, 2] money and 3] celebrity.
The fallout from
employing Hendron is continuing and serious.
On the one hand there are the effects of a solicitor, acting against
their client in order to prevent them being successful in their legal battle,
advance the other side and there are the financial gains to be made for both
sets of solicitors and Hendron for basically doing nothing. The injustice for myself and the future
unsuspecting clients who, through no fault of theirs, find themselves drawn to
instructing this person. Now we should
remember that, says Hendron, none of this is his fault. According to his sworn statement he was, at
various times stating that for the periods concerned he unaware of anything,
not compos mentis, aware, determined not to rightfully pay what he owed,
suffering medically.
Note should be made
that he did not apologise for any of his actions. Not his failure towards his former clients,
colleagues past, present or future, ombudsman,
professional body or the justice system he claims to uphold. We have to, he squeaked, remember that none
of this is his fault and according to Hendron he is always right.
It is curious to then for me to be
guided by the Law Society website to the Legal Ombudsman to raise my
complaint. Hendron was supposed to be in
court in Leicester on 20th May 2016 and less than 2 days before his clerk had
contacted an unknown e-mail address to 'inform' me that Hendron was sick and
would not attend. This was not the first
time that Hendron was sick and would not attend - they were sick for the
initial consultation and we were left sat in a corridor with boxes of documents
going through the issues with the clerk.
Hendron's sickness in May 2016
was not explained leaving us discover through the BBC that 'In May 2016, Henry Hendron
was sentenced to 140 hours of unpaid workafter pleading guilty to two counts of
possession with intent to supply.'
The initial appointment in August 2015 the 'sickness' as a result
perhaps of the police charges they were facing for supplying illegal drugs: a
34 year old practising lawyer to a male, who had just turned adult and a non GB
national. Interesting that the sickness
did not prevent Hendron from continuing to tout for and accept public access
cases. He would say on 25th July 2019
that he was in no fit mental state to know what he was doing but was happy
enough to take money to represent people in an unfit mental state.
Either way, through
the BSB's Initial
Consideration and Referral of Cases to a Fitness to Practise Panel 15.
they were practising upon unwitting members of the the public unfettered
because, to my certainty, no-one approached me warning of Hendron's precarious
liberty situation or took steps to stop Hendron practising at that time leaving
addressing their members situation until after Hendron was sentenced. Hendron himself did not 'self-report' being
mentally/medically incapacitated during the time of accepting several lots of
money [between July 2015 and May 2016] an argument he came to rely on
repeatedly during the two-day Tribunal hearing of 25/26 July 2019. There seems to be a culture of enabling that
allows this to happen to certain people.
Further
salt to the wounds of Hendron's victims Hendron has a history of blaming others to save his
own skin. Law chiefs found him guilty
of professional misconduct in November after he described alleged victims as
'manipulative and duplicitous’ on the eve of start date of the trial of Mr
Evans.
The Bar Standards
Board fined him £2,000.
The driving offences
Hendron was convicted of seem to have disappeared from the BSB website
Having been assured
by Hendron's then paralegal clerk Andy that I
would be repaid
on 28th June 2016
Andy wrote not on Strand chambers liveried paper but on a cheap mock up of
headed paper as "DF|LEGAL":-
"Further
to our communication and your confirmation that you do [sic} nt wish the
outstanding funds for fees paid to Mr Hendron please find enclosed a cheque for
£650."
The cheque bounced
in 20th July 2016. Hendron made no attempt to respond so I took
my complaint to the Legal Ombudsman but not before contacting both Strand
chambers and DE|FACTO [where Hendron wrote stating all his business interests
had been transferred to].
Richard Hendron who
copied in 'henry@de-facto.co.uk' gave the following responses to my e-mail
requests that the monies be paid '160725 £650 UNPAID CHEQUE from HENRY HENDRON
"In
which case this is not my debt. Why
would you think I would just give you £650?
I am in a business not charity.
Please take it up with strand chambers"
And
"We
have reached the end of this discussion"…If you think you have a claim
then may I suggest that you issue against me and allow the court to
decide. Before you do I put you on
notice as to costs, despite this being a small claim I will seek to recover my
costs against you as any claim you bring will be utterly unreasonable."
Users of legal services who are then faced
with having to complain are swiftly guided to go down the Legal Ombudsman
route. Waste of time. They cannot uphold any decision they reach or
force a member of the legal profession to comply.
What they do is
generate enormous amounts of work for you and then stump up the information
that 'they have reached the end of what they can do'. The legal profession know this too but they
continue to use this 'system' as a means
to providing assurance or insurance to users of legal services.
On Mon 12/09/2016 at
17:50 the BSB wrote in e-mail"
If you
are the client of a barrister, a prospective client of a barrister who could
reasonably have expected to receive a service from that barrister or you were
unreasonably offered a service by a barrister that you did not want, you can
make a complaint to the Office of the Legal Ombudsman. The Ombudsman deals with
complaints by clients that their lawyer has provided an unsatisfactory service
and is able to award compensation of up to £50,000.00 against the lawyer in
appropriate cases. The Legal Ombudsman will not investigate complaints of
professional misconduct and cannot make disciplinary findings.
If the
Legal Ombudsman considers that a complaint made to it by a client potentially
raises issues of professional misconduct then it will refer those issues to the
Bar Standards Board. The Bar Standards
Board is not able to require the barrister complained of to pay compensation or
to provide any other kind of redress. The ordinary time limit for making a
complaint to the Legal Ombudsman is six years from the act/omission complained
of or three years from the date that a complainant should reasonably have known
there was cause for complaint without taking advice from a third party.
It is
worth pointing out that Mr Henry Hendron’s interim suspension commenced from 17
May 2016, and he was prohibited from representing you after this date.
Their
contact details are:
Tel:
0300 555 0333
I hope
this information if of assistance.
Yours
sincerely,"
As I say what is
evident from this is that the BSB AND Hendron were in the period up to the
expected Hendron 20 May 2016 that he was an unfit practitioner of law but was
allowed to continue amassing funds from the unfortunate unwitting public. All
contrary to their code of practice.
In interviewing
Hendron in Sep 22 2017 12:27 about the period of 2015/16 it says "After
his arrest, with his diary empty of work, Hendron recalls he went on “the
biggest drugs binge I’ve ever been on” and “ended up in hospital several times
and almost died on two occasions”
This is a concern
because it demonstrates that the unfitness of Hendron to practise was becoming
ever more known to a wider circles.
Certainly his brother Richard Hendron, he of DE|FACTO, Hendron's company
in waiting for the issues to blow over, knew of the unfitness to practice and
did not report him; Richard had been a policeman but had moved in to be a
lawyer at the company without ever having to follow the usual pupillage route
so all very convenient. [I think he's
wanting to be London Mayor now or a journalist or a UKIP councillor dependent
on how they feel when waking perhaps?.]
Henry Hendron
tribunal of 2019 went in-camera to hear medical evidence so some of the detail
he hasn't spilled to anyone who will listen is unknown however on Friday 25th
July he was dwelling on about these issues in a 'Uriah Heep' obsequious manner
as at the same time claiming to his fee paying customers he was fit to
practice. Surely? His lifestyle was "chaotic" yet
neither he nor anyone who knew stopped him from taking money for services he
would not render. In response to the
'prosecuting' barrister Hendron said he did "not agree" that the
effects of his actions impacted on clients.
For the only person suffering in the world of Hendron is himself; there
is no-one else of any import.
When questioned why
he had not repaid the monies between the cheque bouncing in 2016 to the second
cheque bouncing in October 2018 and through to the 25th/26th July 2019 Hendron
blamed the intended recipient after raising his voice increasingly to a near
shouting level of "look I wanted this over but I knew she was going to do
something like this and I didn't want to go through another
tribunal". Easily three or more
times Hendron was asked this question without ever answering it property. He said "mea culpa" then said it
was for the "clerk to deal with administrative matters", in
"2017 I wanted to put matters to bed" however but confirmed that they
had taken no action to do so.
Later findings
showed Hendron's words differed again from their action per the BBC:-
Hendron flip-flopped
citing no knowledge of an address to send my cheque but was forced to backtrack
when confirming that the 12th September 2017 Notice of the BSB investigation
contained within the Legal Ombudsman's paper my address details; Hendron was
guided to the document showing this at page 49 but replied "if you say
so'. Drawing Hendron on a statement of
fact it was put to him that since that time he had
'not
paid Mrs Hobbs have you?'
'No
I haven't' came back the reply and back around he took us on the "I didn't
know I had t/where to send the payment/it wasn't my fault" merry-go-farce.
He wanted, it was
suggested, to avoid payment and be awkward to which Hendron replied he was
"battling all over the place", she's a "difficult person".
The reasonable
questioning moved on to "why not leave the money in the dormant
account?" to which the snapped answer was I "didn't want to pay
her".
The head of a legal
entity was asked again "why not leave the money in the dormant account and
put all of this on Mrs Hobbs?"
Hendron
apparently "didn't have the luxury" [of being true to his assurances
to the BSB/LeO as stated In his e-mail that the funds were solely for the
purposes of meeting the £850.00 due to me.]
He had direct debits coming out of a dormant account - a contradiction.
It was suggested
that Hendron whilst writing to the LeO politely assuring them that the funds
were available was at the same time writing bellicosely to me telling me that
if I did not cash the cheque within 2 business days then the funds were 'in his
opinion' waived. So sue me. Asked reasonably if the reality for a tiny
window of the funds was because he knew the money would disappear? We were back
to railing about "the woman" and it all being her fault. Poor woe is me Hendron. The obvious obfuscation by Hendron he
denied. He was mute when asked were
there were any "factual disputes" or when it was stated that he had
done nothing for nearly three years to pay his creditor or meet the obligations
of the findings of the LeO.
The chair asked if
Hendron could identify any reason why a creditor would not want to accept a
payment and shouty-Hendron was again struck dumb.
Not so when asked
why they had taken no steps to comply with the preliminary findings or the
final findings. What Hendron proceeded
to do was split hairs on which set of findings were the reason why he was
appearing, again, before the BSB Tribunal. Hendron had taken no steps to comply
with the preliminary findings but according to him that needed to be put in to
context namely that, in a round about explanation he did not accept what the 2 days proceedings were about. He was [translating to Hendron speak that it
was the duty of everyone else to do things for him/serve him/not expect
payment] "not checking e-mail because [I] was in another world",
" because [he] was busy and lost in [his] own problems .
The cheque to Miss
Hobbs did not bounce despite Hendron's repeated claims that it was cashed in
September 2018. This was another
diversion of Hendron's away from fact; the fact being that the cheque to Miss
Hobbs was cashed upon their return from their honeymoon. Having gone to a different person at a
different address. Hendron's rant on
this was not picked despite this payment not being part of the proceedings.
Hendron claimed to
be unaware of the decision and was resistant to admit to having sent
confirmation of the acceptance of the same despite the physical document as
evidence put before him and in his possession for two plus years. The despite the final decision coming in May
2017 it still took 15 months for the second cheque [which would again bounce]
to be paid.
He wrote on 8 March
2018:-
Dear
Mrs Hobbs,
I
borrowed the £850 from a friend to be able to write the cheque. Regrettably, an unexpected direct debit has
just taken the balance below that to which the bank are likely to honour the
cheque that I have written to you. [Not
supported by evidence] I am most sorry
about this situation which I recognise is inconvieanent to you…if you are able
to provide your bank details then I will arrange for a bank transfer…
In summary a man
with a publicly known as well as known to their profession and professional
bodies drug addiction was telling me they wanted my bank details.
In summing up he
reverted back to saying he was unaware of either having to pay or where to pay
despite admitting previously that neither was the case.
I had stayed on to
follow the day's proceedings and had met a chap who in c. May 2019 had paid a
£10,000.00 fee to Hendron and was claiming this money had been absconded with,
no services provided. Upon learning of the upcoming tribunal the claimant had contacted
the BSB and asked that his complaint be appended to mine; the request was
denied. What does seem evident is that
the tribunal will have Hendron before them again shortly. This claimant has made contact with the press
who attended the July 2019's tribunal and I hope that the Sunday Times or
Central News Agency are ready to have this story rumbling on.
Update
To the ends despite
stating contraditorily during his appearance, Hendron denied the charges
forcing the tribunal hearing to go ahead with witnesses having to attend.
As well as seeming
to do this purely as an act of spite towards those he aggrieved and an
opportunity to play the victim Hendron, went on to not only admit the offences
[of bouncing a cheque and undermining public trust] thereby again undermining
his whole appearance at the tribunal. It
was reported in an interview of his moaning about his suspension so has it not
occurred to him that he has been very lucky on many, many occasions?
Drink
driving - slap on the wrist
Drink
driving no 2 - slap on the wrist
Taking
& keeping money belonging to another barrister - slap on the wrist
Not
acting appropriately as head of chambers
- slap on the wrist
Taking
on his brother without going through the correct process - not
self-reported by either Hendron
Slagging
off witnesses likely to cause fear [trial collapse] during a trial - - slap on the wrist
Providing
drugs that killed his [just] adult boyfriend - slap on the wrist
Admitting
having larger quantities of drugs
intending to supply [comment of Anonymous all this woe is me...should be
disbarred ] - slap on the wrist
Giving a interview on Radio
4 during the course of his trial - not considered
Hustling
for business when suspended - not
considered
Attending
dining at Inns when suspended & boasting on facebore - not
self-reported by either Hendron
Writing
cheques knowing they would bounce - slap
on the wrist
Misleading
his ex-client [You must observe your duty to the court in the administration of
justice [CD1].] as to undermine their case -
not self-reported by Hendron
Taking
£10K for services and not providing them - to be confirmed if the public access
client complaint is progressing and certainly not self-reported by Hendron
Does
the penalty
Dormant account -
where Hendron deposited a cheque of £1,000.00 loaned from his friend Richard
Hilton to remain there until such time as the cheque he raised and sent to
cover the £850 now owed was cashed.
DF|LEGAL company
registration number:9983389
is the company Hendron set up to get around the BSB suspension
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-rollonfriday-used-attempt-pervert-course-justice
