DMH Stallard Reviews 

Atrocious! Please Avoid them completely!
Unheard of levels of incompetency and unprofessionalism.

The solicitor didn’t have my phone number when the barrister asked him to contact me to tell me she wasn’t going to attend. 1. He charged me for asking for my number 2. Charged me again for passing it on to her ( and these are all big figures ) 3. Claimed that he did not even know what she wanted my number for .
Honestly he thinks he should charge me for his incompetency and lack of understanding !

This firm charged me over 3000 pounds for incorrect advice and didn't even draft the letter I needed. I went to a new lawyer and she charged 600 pounds for correct advice and the drafting of the letter I needed.

I was obliged to deal with this company in reviewing a deed of covenant recently.

Was charged over £1000 for reviewing one covenant.

I had 3 deeds fully drawn up by a different solicitor from another company as part of the same transaction for less than £800

Avoid any dealings with these absolute crooks!

Avoid this firm at all costs. I was advised by Cheraine Williams and I have had to now make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman about the service provided, and find a new lawyer.

I mean this whole heartedly, THIS COMPANY IS AWFUL. I am saying this EVEN THOUGH I ACTUALLY WON MY CASE! I feel my personal persistence won my case, not the work of DMH Stallard or Tessa Greyson. They are awful in communication, change solicitors multiple times, take YEARS to sort a situation, do not advise well or correctly, came across rude and rude to witness. TESSA GREYSON IS AWFUL. Did not even congratulate me in winning my case!

If you have to use a no-win, no-fee solicitors, which I recommend not doing (as you can probably win the case by yourself), I would recommend Fletchers Solicitors - who I have used on 2 different cases and beyond winning my cases, they have acted professionally AND MADE ME FEEL THEY WERE IN MY CORNER NOT THE MONEY ONE!

Early in 2013, I instructed DMH Stallard LLP of Crawley (“DMH”) to act for me in a certain matter. That matter was dealt with by a partner. In August 2013, I asked DMH to issue legal proceedings: this was three weeks before the last date upon which proceedings could be issued (“the limitation date”) as calculated by DMH.

Two days before that limitation date, I received an e-mail that had ostensibly been sent by DMH some five days earlier. In that e-mail, the partner dealing with the matter said that he was no longer prepared to act for me, although he had never previously indicated that he would not be prepared to pursue the matter to a conclusion. The reasons given for that decision appeared to me to be spurious, not least because those reasons would have been just as relevant at the outset, yet they had never previously been mentioned.

In the subsequent exchange of e-mails, the partner dealing with the matter failed to address the fundamental questions; and in November 2013, the matter was raised as a complaint and dealt with by a different partner.

The partner who was dealing with the complaint said that he would need the best part of a month to look into the matter, but even then he needed a reminder before he produced his substantive response. That substantive response maintained that the partner who had dealt with the original matter had done nothing wrong. It included assertions that appeared irrelevant; assertions that appeared incorrect; assertions that appeared incomplete; at least one assertion that appeared unrealistic; and one assertion that appeared to be a logical impossibility. Furthermore, it signally failed to address the fundamental questions. When asked to justify his assertions, and to address the fundamental questions, the partner who was dealing with the complaint refused to do so, and refused to disclose any further information – and he had disclosed little enough to date – insisting that the complaint could only be progressed through the Legal Ombudsman.

The intermediation of the Legal Ombudsman proved to be less than helpful, serving only to protract matters. The Legal Ombudsman’s assessor decided that DMH had provided poor service, and made a recommendation that DMH should pay me a certain sum. At the same time, DMH put forward its own offer of settlement, at a higher figure, via the Legal Ombudsman. However, the offer put forward by DMH required me to accept its offer as settlement of all & any rights of action that I might have had against DMH, and DMH’s refusal to provide information meant that I could not properly assess what, if any, such rights I might have had. As soon as I queried the terms of the DMH offer, both offers were immediately withdrawn without notice, and the matter proceeded to a ‘Final Decision’ by one of the Legal Ombudsmen. Regrettably, that ‘Final Decision’ was factually inaccurate, and was rejected for that reason. However, the involvement of the Legal Ombudsman had taken up a good part of 2014.

When the involvement of the Legal Ombudsman had been concluded, I reverted to the partner who was dealing with the complaint with a view to agreeing an amicable settlement. He refused to disclose any further information, but he did offer a modest settlement that he knew could not be assessed properly, because he had refused to provide the information that would be necessary to assess it.

Early in 2015, I indicated that it was my intention to issue proceedings for negligence. The partner who was dealing with the complaint refused to comply with any part of the pre-action protocol for professional negligence cases. In the summer of 2015, I issued proceedings against DMH for negligence, seeking a refund of all fees paid. Although in the ‘Acknowledgement of Service’ DMH indicated that it intended to defend the claim, a few days later it settled the claim in full before the matter came before the Court, and without filing a defence. However, the approach adopted by the partner who was dealing with the complaint meant that it had taken nearly two years, and a lot of work, to secure that refund. As DMH had refused throughout to provide a full explanation of why it had acted as it did, it may not be that unreasonable to speculate that DMH paid several thousand pounds to settle my claim so that it could avoid having to explain its conduct.

After DMH had settled my claim in full, I updated the Legal Ombudsman and drew the facts to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The latter did not consider that the actions of DMH – including the lack of candour that attended the matter throughout, and the refusal to comply with the pre-action protocol – were, of themselves, sufficiently serious to justify its attention.

It is worth noting that some three months before this review was posted, I sent an e-mail to those at DMH who had dealt with the matter. In that e-mail, I notified them of my intention to post this review, setting out the factual matters detailed above. I also copied the e-mail to a senior partner. I invited the recipients to draw my attention to any errors, but they did not respond to that invitation.