Doughtystreet Avaliações 

We instructed David Lemer. In lieu of advice, he gave us the white book chapter to read ourself simultaneously took fees from us. His "advise" lead to a contempt of court application against me. James Whiting , CEO ignored complaints. He denied Geoffery Robertson was the Head of Chambers, despite Geoffery Robertson holding out to be head of Chambers for 1 year to me and on the Clooney foundation. David Lemer was professionally embarrassed in court. I was shocked, it was surreal. I asked Kirsty Brimelow (chairman of the BSB) to report this to BSB, she ignored me. They double charged me and refused to refund the extra charge. They misrepresented the cost of the case and breached BS code as they did not provide an hourly rate. I had to issue a notice of discontinuance whist David Lemer chased my solicitor for fees despite acting in a state of conflict since drafting my POC. I understand many of their barristers are on the BSB board. Now I have to issue a negligence claim against them. I can only reiterate the other 2 reviews, please steer clear of this set. It is a cash cow, there is not an iota of competence or strategic oversight / management.

This is a totally useless company which caused me a great deal of trouble and distress. I engaged them to prepare an application for the European Court of Human Rights on a critical issue about my children. They gave me a barrister who did not take me seriously and acted in a completely irresponsible way about meeting the deadline. This led to me missing the deadline to file the application with the ECtHR. Now, my children have been left in a critical situation with mental health issues and there is no way to get them out of that situation.

In the meantime Doughty Street have their Amal Clooney parading herself in front of the media pretending that hers is a great firm. They are all image and no substance.

In the end, Doughty Street returned my money probably because they saw that the alternative was a law suit from myself because of what they did to my children and I.

Avoid them like the plague.

Absolutely all round abysmal experience which I would like to detail in brief:

I instructed Mr Nicholas Bowen QC at the beginning of the year. After meeting with him I do not feel Mr Bowen QC should be working with people with mental illnesses as he refereed to one of his clients mental state (during a conference with me, who he detailed as a female law graduate currently at Oxford University studying for a PhD whose case has been going on for over 5 years) as "F***ed Up." I found this to be an appalling way to refer his clients mental state and was in shock at the time he said it as was the person who accompanied me to the meeting.

At one point Mr Bowen QC discussed quantum of my claim (which he was not asked to do) and for some reason referenced a graphic case whereby a young boy had been raped by an escaped patient. I found the usage of this case deeply disturbing and not at all relevant to my claim; I felt he was trivializing me and my case by using this as an example. I did not want to hear about a child being raped.

I felt Mr Bowen QC took a cavalier attitude to my instructions doing what he wanted rather than what he was instructed for. Doughty Street Chambers complaints process was a shambles, firstly Mr Bowen QC provided me with an incorrect complaints procedure with his client care letter, they did not apologise for this at any time, and then the chambers took nearly two months to investigate my complaint under a different client complaints procedure they emailed me.

They had one of their staff Mr James Wood QC investigate the complaint, he's purportedly a specialist QC who deals with fraud and is noted as a "heavyweight criminal barrister." I wondered if they selected Mr Wood for his expertise in this field as I certainly feel Mr Bowen QC has taken my money for work he has not carried out as instructed.

I feel the investigation Mr Wood QC carried out was bias in favour of his colleague. Mr Wood noted in his investigation outcome that its 'entirely' appropriate that "busy" QC's do not return client communication (something the Bar Standards Rules might disagree with given they have rules about barristers being too busy for their clients). Mr Wood took Mr Bowen's stated versions of events as fact, despite evidence and witnesses to the contrary; luckily I also record my telephone communications (which I would recommend all clients do with Mr Bowen QC for your records) so a complaint to the legal ombudsman will unlikely fall their favour given that what Mr Wood took as fact is simply based on Mr Bowen's word; something I would not expect a QC to do when evidence was provided to the contrary and more evidence was available.

It was deeply distressing dealing with this Chambers and their staff. I hope no one else has to go through what I had to with them and I shall try to make sure the Legal Ombudsman intervene and remove the PhD client from Mr Bowen QC’s care, as I feel he should not be handling her claim when he refers to her mental status in such a derogatory manner. I worry for any vulnerable clients who may go to this chambers and receive similar treatment as it could leave them in a worse state.