Our Blogs

Everyone that works in the legal profession should be aware of the bad PR that has been generated through the actions of the UK’s most high profile divorce lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, by now. Last week, several newspapers reported on how Mrs Shackleton – who was made a Tory Peer in 2010 – had added significant charges to her client’s final bills whilst failing to specify what work had been done in order to justify them. In fact, the additional charges – which amounted to tens of thousands of pounds – were featured under a column titled ‘Mark Up’. The British media quickly saw an opportunity and, following interviews with members of the Legal Ombudsman and Solicitors Regulation Authority, declared that many individuals who instruct solicitors are often lumbered with significant and unjustified legal bills. Yesterday, the Daily Mail drove a further nail into the professions metaphorical coffin, reporting that comedian John Cleese – whose former wife, Alyce Faye Eichelberger, was represented by Shackleton during their divorce, with Cleese being responsible for the payment of her fees – was hit with an enormous legal bill as a result of Shackleton’s actions. The veteran comedian has claimed that Shackleton hired private investigators in order to determine his whereabouts and ensure that he could be served with legal papers despite the fact that his whereabouts were well known. He has also argued that Alyce and Shackleton were in possession of his email address, but that neither attempted to contact him in order to ascertain his whereabouts. Shackleton has claimed that she only hired a private detective to serve the necessary paper work on Cleese and that this was necessary as a result of the divorce procedures that apply to U.S. jurisdiction. Cleese’s personal assistant has noted, however, that Shackleton’s final bill clearly stated two separate fees: one for a process server and another for a private investigator. In September of this year, the Daily Mail reported that Marco Pierre White’s wife Mati had been sent a demand for nearly £40,000 in unpaid legal fees relating to her divorce from the celebrity chef. The couple has reconciled eight months before Mati was issued with the writ which was issued by solicitors Payne Hicks Beach – whose partners include Shackleton – whom Mati had instructed just two weeks before her and Marco patched things up. The firm have claimed that Mati amassed legal fees of £26,000 in this short time and that, with interest, these fees now stand at approximately £37,000. Mati has since stated that she intends to appeal the writ. So, what exactly does this mean for solicitors in the UK? It should certainly be noted that only a minority of solicitors act in such a dishonest manner, but the majority of them will still be tarnished by Shackleton’s actions. The public are becoming increasingly more cautious with their money and these reports will – unfairly or otherwise – have a significant impact on the number of people that seek out alternative legal services when in need of assistance. What’s more Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Anthony Townsend recently informed the Guardian that with a double-dip recession looming, more and more solicitors are likely to engage in such unscrupulous behaviour – worrying, indeed.