Old Bailey Solicitors Limited

There’s legal representation and there’s Old Bailey Solicitors Legal representation. After ten months of frustration and no progress on my case, I woke up one morning, googled my case and Old Bailey Solicitors Law popped up, I gave them a call and never looked back. My experience with Old Bailey Solicitors has been nothing short of exemplary. The exceptional services provided by their team, in Particular Camilla Rents’ demonstrated professionalism, humanity and genuine interest throughout the process, which meant she had a profound impact on my case. She is an exceptional Solicitor Advocate and her strategic approach, which was both meticulous and conscientious delivers the best possible outcome.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Camilla Jane Rents

wrong advice cant get hold of them AFTER you pay takes too long to send a simple email i suggest to avoid them especially Matthew Bishop which is a trainne and totaly clueless. Also he cant send an email on time. He will cause you stess and anxiety. eventually had to find another layer befor e he destoys me

I payed him £720 to contact the police and keep me updated with my case. He almost destroyed me.....his advice was completely wrong and was utterly incopetent. What do you expect from a traiee? he is not able to send an email on time.Also has super hard to get in touch with him. that stressed me out and had to find another lawyer...bye bye money!

I read the previous comment and was amazed that there could actually be any truth to it. My experience is the opposite. I was innocent and protested this from the start. Old Baily gave me a choice of barristers to choose from. Not just one. I happen to choose Brian Alfred. Through his knowledge and understanding this avoided an innocent man from going to prison. I can not speak enough praise for this Barrister that always puts your interests first. And advices on any negative or positive outcomes this might have old Baily solicitors are top solicitors. And I will never use another one or even recommend another then them

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Camilla Jane Rents

An individual contacted me with a story of his representation by the Inner Temple 'consultant' for this firm Mr Brian Aldred (the sole barrister representing the firm). This was a public defender case for petty drug related incident involving roughly £250 of illegal substances. The firm has elected to appoint Mr Aldred, consultant barrister of the 'prestigious' Inner Temple Inn for this firm, to represent a client in a simple sentencing hearing. The client was VERY encouraged to AVOID asking for any pre-sentence report from probation services, as in his professional opinion, this would both be 'almost certain to be rejected', and 'highly likely to be viewed as frivolous or time wasting by the judge', thereby not recommended by Mr Aldred, as this would very likely lead to a high risk of an increased sentence. Mr Aldred stated a number of times, as a matter of simple fact, that there was 'zero chance' of anything other than an immediate custodial sentence, due to the sentencing guidelines offering a minimum recommended sentence of roughly 27 months; 3 months above the maximum suspended sentence possible. Despite the clients repeated insistence that a pre-sentencing hearing was, in the clients view, a very appropriate approach to this legal situation, and that it offered a very real and plausible avenue to reduce the sentence below the custodial threshold, Mr Aldred was extremely adamant that he could under no circumstances recommend, and was insistent that we did not contest the sentencing guidelines at in any way, practically insisting that the was no alternative but that the client proceed with his initial recommendation, and avoid incurring additional time being added to the sentence by potentially 'wasting the judges time'. The client at this stage was forced to explain the simple reasoning for insisting on a probation report request - that Mr Aldred was apparently legally advising that the risk of incurring a small increase in custodial sentence was to great of a risk to take, versus the possibility of avoiding a custodial sentence entirely by taking such a risk. As client pointed out to Mr alred, there was very little to no practical downside to requesting a Probation report prior to sentencing, given the huge potential upside of this approach, versus a frankly trivial increase to the certain custodial sentence, and that despite Mr Aldred's attempts at framing the risks in a greatly exaggerated way, the client was of a sound understanding of the legal ramifications, and considered it a risk 'well worth taking' in his opinion. Reluctantly, Mr Aldred (25 years experienced Consulting Barrister of Inner Temple Inn membership) agreed to attempt this approach, despite his heavy recommendation against. In his words, or words to the following effect, this was a 'very serious offense, and it absolutely justified the kind of custodial sentence that the guidelines prescribe'. I would like you to note this for later. Long story short, the judge approved the pre sentence report with zero hesitation, ironically seeming frustrated that Mr Aldred felt it necessary to begin a log winded an impassioned argument extolling the particulars that warranted such a request - an argument pre-empted quickly by the judge who cut the speech short and granted the request with no hesitation, seemingly irritated by the superfluous lengthy justification that was to proceed the request, before even having listened to more than the first sentence. Long story short, the clients approach was positively successful, in large part due to the excellent advocacy of the Probation Services, and the careful and fair minded attitude of the judge, who later remarked that it was obvious, particularly following probation's testimony, that a prison sentence in this case was highly unlikely to lead to a just outcome, and that there had been enough supporting circumstances offered by her proposal for a deferred sentence, with 24 months suspended sentence to be conditionally offered in the event of the court's requirements being met in full during this time. The client, who acknowledges that Mr Aldred did perform some skilled advocacy of in the latter stages of the proceedings, at least, is nevertheless of the undeniable opinion that Mr Aldred failed to represent the client's interests to the fullest of his ability, and maybe even knowingly so. I leave this to your, the reader's, own judgements. You may be interested to see the other cases that Mr Aldred cites on his website page at oblaw.co.uk - and if you wish, you can pay attention to the linguistics and tone of the each of the cases listed, and see if you can spot one that differs significantly in tone regarding the framing of the case description... I will also add my own emphasis in [], where I wish to add my own editorial comments. Brian has been practising in criminal law for over 25 years, having been called as a barrister in 1994. Recent Cases Alleged rap3 of a woman with Dissociative Identity Disorder. The defendant walked free after a re-trial. [so the woman's mental health disability worth mentioning here I see, alongside a mostly neutral description of the defendant. Note 'Walked-free' and 'alleged'. Also this case went a mis-trial I would assume] Gun-point robbery: Client acquitted of possession of firearm [client acquitted of even possessing firearm. Excellent work on the alleged violent criminal being cleared of charges] M was alleged to have ‘ironed’ her 4-year-old daughter. Case dropped by CPS after Brian’s skeleton legal argument on admissibility was served. [potential child abuser prosecution dropped after negotiation with CPS on a procedural technicality. Nice work, +1 to the side of justice!] A young man accused of raping a friend whilst they were d runk was successfully found not guilty at trial. [A 'young man' (poor little guy) accused of raping a friend 'successfully' found not guilty at trial. - I can't comment on this case, but can comment on the clearly sympathetic descriptors. A theme... ] ---------- Brian successfully argued that this man who supplied class A drugs could be given a chance and he was spared an immediate prison sentence. [Wow where to start. Bitter much that this client was forced to do your job for you, Mr inner Temple consulting barrister, specialising in highly complex and high end difficulty cases? Was a simple probation followed by guilty lea such a massive achievement for you? Let me demonstrate - 'THIS MAN', 'CLASS A DRUGS' (the horror.. not class A???), 'COULD be GIVEN a chance' - 'SPARED an IMMEDIATE prison sentence.' Authors verdict - bitter, small minded bully of a man who who should be a source of shame to himself and his profession for this petty, sad little tantrum above, unless this wasn't written by the esteemed Barrister-In-Law of Inner Temple Inn renown. Bravo. Also love the amount of credit implied to Brian's excellent abilities saving the day for this client. Your mother will surely be proud.] Court persuaded to give the defendant, who had committed robbery armed with a weapon, a mental health order instead of custody. [Another violent armed robbery - presumably the esteemed Mr Aldred did not consider this offense 'so seriously in nature that custodial sentence is fully justified'... or some of the others further down either perhaps?] Mr J. kept out of prison despite causing GBH to another man (multiple fractures to jaw) when he swung punches at him whilst holding a bottle. ['kept' out of prison (rightfully so I can't help but infer...) Multiple fractures to the Jaw as a thinly veiled flex. More of that to come] No evidence was offered against Mr. C, alleged to have stalked his ex-wife, following service of a tactically-detailed defence statement. [dear me, an alleged victim of stalking - decided to withdraw her case following a 'tactical defence statement. Sure there was no subtle subtle intimidation of threats 'tactically' included, and she drops the case on sheer lack of merit at the 11th hour. I would not bet money on that statement being as revealing as the rest of this stuff...] Mr. A was alleged to have laundered in excess of £100k that was the proceeds of people trafficking or other organised crime. He was acquitted. [Oh dear, so 'this man' and 'class A' was so blessed to be 'spared jail', but 'Mr A' who was alleged to have laundered 100k in human trafficking (modern slavery perhaps) on behalf of organised criminals. Rightly fully acquitted, and I'm sure there was very little linking him to the crime and this was a simple open and shut case for the Consultant. I would bet a months wages this guy was innocent, otherwise it compares unfavourably on the 'seriousness scale' discussed throughout] SAVING THE BEST TILL LAST....... (BEAST?) Allegations of 'deviant' offences on four different children in two families and possession of indecent images made against company director. Found not guilty on all charges. [I'll repeat] Allegations of 'deviant' offences on four different children in two families and possession of indecent images made against company director. Found not guilty on all charges. Bottom line? Violent criminal with tendencies towards possible Evil, and/or almost certainly guilty? Brian will either cut you a deal or gaslight the Jury into acquitting even the most trickiest of evil accusations, child 'abuse' of 4 different children, and possible child related images? Sure that made it to court with no compelling evidence, and that it was not the darks arts that saved the day for our intrepid 'company director' (aka important person, hero of the day...) Armed robbery, never even had a gun, I promise the Jury that man never did nothing! SURE THERE ARE NO CREATIVE USES OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY, BASED ON THE MOST CHERRY PICKED OF INCONSISTENCIES GETTING VIOLENT MONSTERS OFF SCOTT FREE. ALL THIS I CAN RESPECT, EXCEPT..... THIS HIGHLY CONNECTED, EXPERIENCED AND UNDENIABLY TALENTED INDIVIUAL, MR BRIAN ALDRED, OF INNER TEMPLE INN RENOUN, CONSULTING BARRISTER AND COMPLEX/EXTREME DIFFICULTY CASE SPECILTY, ESPECIALLY VIOLENT OR CRIMINAL CASE. THIS SAME MR BRIAN ALDRED, SPENDS HIS QUITER DAYS AT THE OFFICE REPRESENTING NEAR ONE OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY CASES IMAGINABLE - DEALING TO CLOSE FRIENDS IN DOUBLE DIGIT DRUG TRADES - HE FINDS IT WORTH HIS MORNING TO COME, AND PATRONISINGLY (OBJECTIVELY ALSO EVIDENT AS FALSELY SO), THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER OUTCOME OTHER THAN A 100% CERTAINTY OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCE. WHILE REFUSING TO GIVE ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNTIVE APPROACH BY THIS INSIGNIFACNT CLIENT. AND TO ATTEMPT, IN MY HUMBLE OPION, TO GASLIGHT AND MANIPULTE THE CLIENT INTO ACCEPTING AN UNCESSARILY HARSH SENTENCE, WITHOUT EXPLORING THE STANDARD PROCEDURES AVAILABLE UNDER LAW, AND MAKING INTELLECTUALLY INDEFENSIBLE ARGUEMNTS WHY THIS WAS A VERY BAD IDEA. SUCH TALENT, ON 9/10 CASES ABOVE. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE??? I'LL LEAVE YOU, THE READER, TO DECIDE. γνῶθι σεαυτόν