LCRO 95/2019 CM v DL (9 March 2021) [pdf, 285 KB]
...received from Mr DL. [100] Mr DL had no involvement with the 20[XB] proceedings. It was his recollection that Mr CM had been critical of the performance of counsel who had represented him in the 20[XB] proceedings. [101] Nor do I consider that responsibility for the problems Mr CM encountered in his 20[XI] proceedings can be fairly laid at Mr DL’s door. Mr CM instructed fresh counsel in June 2018. Responsibility for conduct of the 20[XI] proceedings rested with his then couns...