Brett Wilson LLP Reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for ensuring high standards and compliance across law firms in the United Kingdom. It's highly regarded and widely recognised. Here is the SRA's own page on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs), suggesting that it does in fact recognise the problem.
After 14 months of messages being received from Brett Wilson LLP, which also contacted my wife using the wrong name, I decided it was time to report the firm to the SRA. Brett Wilson LLP omits names of the staff whenever contacting their "targets" (maybe to dodge accountability, maybe some other reason/s, but sometimes a name 'slips out'). We don't know why, we just think that's a bit strange and unusual; maybe staff turnover has been high, so not naming staff helps hide that (there are financial woes and key staff has been there for only a few years).
Some days ago I said I'd report and provide ample evidence to support my complaint [1, 2]. My complaint was received, acknowledged, and it may now take a couple of months for determination and/or action. It needs to be done right, not in a hurry, and I welcome the SRA's assessment.
A couple of days ago I said I'd report "Brett Wilson LLP et al (facilitators) to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB)"; however, the SRA should be enough.
The saddest thing in all this is that law firms can maintain high standards shall they wish to; but when they sink into deep debt they might be tempted to start working for mobsters for "Easy Cash", i.e. take the "business" no reputable firm would want to associate with (or it might politely explain to the prospective client that there are slim chances of winning, hence no point pursuing; see the letter Novell's last CEO sent me).
Even more than a year ago Brett Wilson LLP had already earned notoriety in the legal profession for very low "success" rates and low standards, i.e. it had earned the stigma of working on some of the worst cases as long as a client was still willing to pay (e.g. "reputation management"). We're not making this up, nor will we name the solicitors who told us this. We also spoke to other victims of theirs; some of them merely exposed crime, so they deserved an award, not bullying from unnamed Brett Wilson LLP staff.
Let me put that a little more crudely and frankly: Generally speaking, just because you call yourself a law firm and have got a licence to practice does not mean you can exercise "vigilante"-like evangelism for brutal men who physically attack women while trying to terrify some more women. So you have a licence, fine. You also passed some exams, sure. So did I. It doesn't make you an "anti-media squad"; you cannot just do anything you want and, unlike cops, you have nearly no immunity either. You're just private citizens like the rest of us. Adding "Microsoft Word attachment/s" to an E-mail (or taking screenshots/photos/scans of your printouts, for bitmapped versions of those, sans OCR) does not make your words more valuable than anyone else's. It's just absurd, so please get off your high horse and stop doing evil things. Do something positive for society. Protect women from violent men. Don't attack women and people who guard women's safety.
More recently it was abundantly obvious that Brett Wilson LLP staff had reached a point of frustration and crossed some boundaries/thresholds. We took note of this and said it out loud (in public): we won't speak to them again. Reasonable people would not engage in dialogue with bullies.
What is the point debating people who try to put words in your mouth and try to bait one way or another? Sadly, they have the audacity of trying to do a preposterous "trial by E-mail" instead of before independent jurists, who can understand due process rather than insensitive schoolyard bullying tactics. They can also assess and can generally appreciate that women's safety is at stake here. █