RI v Hart LCRO 158 / 2011 (13 July 2012) [pdf, 160 KB]
...correspondence is one of continual excuses being provided by Mr Hart and LT as to why they had not been able to give RI’s file their attention. [20] The Standards Committee considered that the correspondence explaining the causes of delay adequately addressed any concerns the Committee had. A close examination of the email correspondence reveals that it contained little more than ongoing reasons why other matters being dealt with by Mr Hart and LT were taking priority over RI...