Wollens

Multiple P.O.A. forms - smooth process, straightforward, acted with integrity - would recommend Wollens and would use again.

Legal experts tagged in
this review

Iain Douglas

Approachable, easy to understand and efficient. Proactive and great legal knowledge.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Jessica Wycliffe-Jones

We recently moved to Liz Larner at Wollens and she has been extremely helpful. It has been refreshing to have such a proactive and professional experience and we would highly recommend Wollens to anybody needing assistance.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Elizabeth Larner

There is a problem with this firm unfortunately.This is sad, because initially they do seem most positive and helpful.Often this cannot be said of the profession. Once money has changed hands however, this approach seems to change. This does seem to be confirmed by other clients both here and elsewhere. Of course they would maintain that this is because it is only then that they know the true facts.It might be better that they establish their view of these before substantial sums are paid, however. My complaint involved the care and treatment of a loved one at an NHS hospital here in the South West. My relative was placed on a version of the notorious "Liverpool Pathway", which many consider a "death" pathway. Patients are dehydrated, with all fluids being denied, and there is heavy sedative use, regardless of pain levels, which can also prevent drinking, and depress the metabolism. And so the there were too issues: a) The issue of possible negligence , b) Her human rights and freedoms being ignored (I was also possessed an LPA for the relative, which was denied/ignored). Unfortunately, the two lawyers concerned, specialising in these respective areas, couldn't seem to relate and integrate these two ideas. There were two further distinctions: 1) Possible negligence in not actively treating the person:for example she walked a half mile a week before admission, sitting in the local town square, and drinking coffee.This fact was ignored by doctors, and seemingly be these lawyers as well. Instead they became "blinded by science"i.e.an MRI scan result. 2) The actual "end of life" plan or practices themselves, which can reasonably be claimed, cause or hasten death.In this instance my loved one was denied all fluids for 7 days in a 95 degree room, and a sedative "cocktail" was given.This was the main issue. Again, the relationship between these wasn't understood: the medical negligence lawyer ignored the former, simply looking at 1). It was stated that clinicians "did everything they should have done",as "guidance" said that only a saline drip should be used to give fluids in the case of a condition like this. This was completely nonsensical, as the medical records clearly showed that when so called palliative care began this was removed without my consent. Doctors themselves prescribed "sips" of water at first, though it was likely none were given. The notes-although confused-also confirm that there was no water give by mouth for at least 5 days.I helped my loved one drink myself, and she could do so normally.However staff kept trying to prevent this, and then the sedation made this anyway impossible. I pointed out these facts, but those concerned seemed unable or unwilling to grasp them. Instead they seemed preoccupied with a case from the 1950s called Bolham. This was nothing to do with "end of life" at all, and related to a mental patient injured during ECT.ECT, however controversial, is at least a type of cure or treatment, not leading to almost inevitable death, as does 5-7 days of dehydration. During the 1950's doctors did not even prescribe opiates in such cases, and almost always attempted a cure.Even abortion was illegal.The kind of practices which I describe would quite possibly have seen them charged with manslaughter or homicide. The argument, such as it was,could I suppose have been that some kind of "body of doctors"still practiced the LCP or similar, since this in the test (for negligence). Similar arguments could probably be advanced to justify such things as the actions of the doctors tried at Nuremberg even:i.e.they were respected men of science/in their field, and the law was ambiguous at the time, as to whether their actions were civil wrongs or actually criminal. This was part of their defence in fact. I believe it is actually quite clear that clinicians cannot function in a bubble:they can't justify unreasonable, cruel, immoral acts, blatant neglect or disregard of basic rights and freedoms with these kind of arguments. The LCP is actually banned within the UK These considerations are actually embodied in later case law etc e.g.Bolito. In addition, other precedent (e.g.the Bland case),makes clear that doctors are not exempted form their duty to preserve life where basic provision of water by mouth is concerned, only clinically assisted hydration, and aware persons should not be dehydrated( Yet the lawyer in question seemed incredulous when I mentioned criminal concerns). One is left to discover all this oneself however, or by taking advice elsewhere. There were the following problems: i) It was claimed that the doctors did not possess a copy of the LPA. This was factually incorrect:they photocopied the whole document. Their own notes confirmed this. But since the lawyer concerned merely "glanced"at the records (her words),this conclusion was unsurprising. ii) It was said (by the same lawyer) that surgeons couldn't operate due to a life endangering aneurism.Later I consulted a doctor myself as to this. He believed this unlikely. iii) The two lawyers emphasised at first that my own, extensive notes were important. Later they refused to have sight of these, even though I offered additional payment. iv) It was agreed that there would be a letter to the trust relating to a potential claim.This never materialised, even though a claim like this was implicit in the obligation to provide the records.A refund was made, but this was small. On the positive side, a draft letter was written by the COP MCA lawyer, r.e.human rights, to the Ombudsman, which was well written.It omitted to say that all fluids were withdrawn however, not just treatment. Regardless this was of limited use, as it wasn't signed. If the complaints dept. wish to engage with me, I would consider this, but due to all of the above, I fear that I cannot recommend the firm for such cases,despite my initial good impression. They seem to only be willing to take on "right leg amputated instead of left leg" type work, and I believe they lack the courage to embark upon controversial cases, taking on powerful institutions such as the NHS. I would think twice before engaging them in any capacity in fact, as they give an impression, r.e.taking on future work, which can be mislead, leaving clients potentially out of pocket.

After a difficult situation, i found that Wollens did everything they could and went above and beyond, i was constantly kept up to date and felt safe knowing that the case was in professional hands, i would like to thank everyone involved, thank you very much for your help, i would recommend and use again.

Legal experts tagged in
this review

Alicia Clutsam

I instructed Wollens to take on my case last year and that was the best decision I made. I have always been reassured with any worries I have and no questions asked were too much. My case ended with the most positive outcome and I cannot thank Wollens enough for that. I’ve had the very best team on my case and I am so grateful.

My partner used wollens for the past 5 years for a personal injury claim his solicitor was Katherine pinnegar and I couldn't recommend her enough she was amazing and got me through such a hard and tiring time she fought tirelessly to get me justice even after the case,she stuck with me until all the financials where completed and I appreciate everything she done for me it was more than just a case it was closure and my freedom to move on if I could give more than 5 stars I would

Solicitors are sought in times of difficulty, when matters are out out of you own hands and when you lack the required expertise. Wollens have done nothing but take advantage of this in my case. I have just paid a "bill" for which I don't actually have any record of any work being done. No actual correspondence as they have described, has been received regarding outstanding payments for this apparent work, but a threatening letter was received instead. At no point has anything actually been signed by myself, nor have I even met any representative in person. Yet, I owe them for work that I actually instructed another firm to do, for little more than the amount I have just paid Wollens. I pay this fee now, purely out of fear that I would never be able to argue with a law firm that pulled the wool over my eyes from the beginning. If you enquire, you will be billed from the start, without warning, without knowing what you are actually paying for.

These lawyers are total rip- off . They take your money up front, then don't do what they say they will.