Opponents to litigation, solicitors and the Courts should watch out for solicitor Damian Michael Carter, a Partner Weightmans LLP, who already has been warned by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority over his conduct, and may well be struck off, if found in contempt of Court in due course.
To be clear, this is about Damian Carter’s conduct and not Weightmans themselves, who are otherwise a very reputable and decent firm of solicitors.
So, what did Dishonest Damian do?
Background
I first met Carter face-to-face in April 2016, when I attended a meeting with a company owner (now serving a 13-year prison sentence for fraud) and the company owner’s uninspiring in-house solicitor. The meeting was supposed to be a “without prejudice” meeting; but Carter covertly recorded the meeting – which is a big no no for solicitors to do.
I’ve spent years dealing with solicitors (mostly very good ones), but there was a strong whiff that Carter was so busy trying to impress (already previously convicted fraudster) Pilley, he forgot about his requirement to be independent to the legal profession and properly administer justice.
This is perhaps best proven by the fact Carter has launched claim after claim on behalf of the company and its owner in the High Court (and appellant Courts) – all of which either failed with adverse judgements, or were abandoned completely. In one case the Administrative Court found:
[Carter’s clients] have therefore pursued this judicial review to achieve a pointless result. It has the appearance of litigation for its own sake.
In the same Judgement at 122:
This, again, reinforces my concerns about the motivation behind this litigation.
I’ve written in my article about Judges, they are very good as seeing the wood through the trees very quickly. One can probably start to put the pieces together and work out what was really going on here – and it amounts to all the claims brought on behalf of the company to being SLAPPs.
Potential Criminal Offence #1
Carter drafted a very detailed (said to be legally enforceable) Contract which with a rather dodgy clause placed in it:
[the signee shall not] “Further complain, or continue and existing complaints about [the company] to [its regulator]”
This was a big problem to put in the contract.
At the time there was an active Customer Complaints Form on the Blog owned by blogger 0lly which was used by hundreds of the company’s customers, and those complaints went straight to the regulator’s inbox – eventually with the regulator fining the company over its failings.
According to the regulator’s own guidance, under its Enforcement Guidelines:
“If a person fails to produce required documents or information; or alters, supresses of destroys such documents, they may be guilty of a criminal offence ………… If a person intentionally or recklessly destroys, falsifies or conceals a required document, or if a person provides false or misleading information, they may be guilty of a criminal offence……..”
Quite obviously the intent of the clause drafted by Damian Carter in the Contract was to suppress and destroy legitimate customer complaints that would have otherwise reached the regulator, and be used for Enforcement/Regulatory action.
So, this Clause of the Contract possibly places Carter liable to criminal conviction.
Potential Criminal Offence #2
The Ofgem Clause was not the only dodgy clause Carter drafted, which could be criminally actionable, as the Contract further demanded that:
[the signee shall not] “Further complain, or continue and existing complaints about [the company\ to Trading Standards”
This was also a clause Carter refused to remove from the Contract.
The problem with this is that the 0lly’s Blog’s Complaint Form which went to the regulator, was also sent to Trading Standards investigators.
Section 51 of the Public Order Act 1994 says:
“(1)A person commits an offence if—
(b)he does the act knowing or believing that the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence……”
In effect, the Contract sought to prevent assistance with a legitimate criminal investigation with evidence – so that is “the act”.
It is provable that some of the the company’s customers that used the Complaint Form on 0lly’s blog were contacted by Trading Standards in their successful prosecution of the company’s owners. In fact some were called as witnesses to give evidence the criminal trial.
Section 51 goes on to say:
“(2)A person commits an offence if—
(b)he does or threatens to do the act knowing or believing that the person harmed or threatened to be harmed (“the victim”), or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence…….”
Section 51 of the Public Order Act 1994 explains regarding threats to those assisting criminal investigations:
“(4) The harm that may be done or threatened may be financial as well as physical (whether to the person or a person’s property)….”
Financial harm was in effect being threatened that if the Contract was breached, it would entitle the company to damages, legal costs, and the works. Likewise, financial harm was being threatened of Court action if the Contract wasn’t signed.
The Solicitors Regulatory Warning
Carter’s conduct representing the company quickly became on the radar of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, who acted. In February 2019 he was provided with a written warning about his conduct representing the company with the SRA confirming to us they had identified “issues of concern”.
I’ve not seen the warning itself, and Carter has failed to disclose it to any Court to date (despite his requirements to) – but the Solicitors Regulatory Authority don’t warn solicitors about their conduct over representing a Client for the sake of it.
Make of that what you will!
The Breach of the Solicitors Code
This is a bit of a complex thing to explain in an already long post, but let’s try and summarise:
- Parties who engage in litigation must follow the Court’s Disclosure rules, which are covered under Civil Procedure Rule 31.6. This means not only disclosing documents that may help your own case – but also disclosing documents which may adversely affect your own case, or assist your opponent’s case. It’s a contempt of court to hide any evidence that may assist your opponent in defending their claim.
- Parties who engage in litigation and provide witness evidence must give honest witness evidence. They cannot lie, make things up, or say things are true when they are not.
- Solicitors (**including Carter**) have a duty, as officers of the Court, to assist the court in the fair disposal of the proceedings. This includes informing the Court if there has been a concealment of evidence, or if they become aware someone may have lied in their evidence or misled the Court. Solicitors have this duty to the Court above the duties to their own Clients………and yes that means informing the Court if a solicitors’ clients misbehave!
In the case of Damian Carter, for several months if not years he was well aware that company’s owner, its in-house solicitor and head of regulatory had given dishonest evidence in High Court proceedings (huge amounts of lies in the witness evidence, both in writing and the witness box) – and had concealed very large volumes of material from the Court.
Carter failed to tell the court any of this for years, despite being well aware the company’s evidence was false and had misled the Court. This is in direct breach of what the Solicitors Code of Conduct says at 2.7:
You draw the court’s attention to…….procedural irregularities of which you are aware, and which are likely to have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings.
Not only this, but Carter provided Witness Statements in October 2021 and November 2021 (when he was at this point in possession of the concealed evidence) and failed to declare that he was in possession of material that could have fairly disposed of High Court proceedings.
This, as far as I am concerned is a deliberate and obvious attempt to interfere with the proper administration of justice……..which is in contempt of court, and can get a Carter struck off.
Interference in the Administration of Justice
Upon becoming aware of the lies in the witness and the concealment that took place, Carter was asked for delivery up of the material pursuant to CPR31.6 – but refused to provide it.
Damian Carter was required by law to provide the material, for the reasons explained above; both as a solicitor/officer of the Court, but also under a High Court Order, and under the Civil Procedure Rules.
This resulted in yet another 19 months of arguing and delays in having the High Court proceedings disposed of……..despite the fact that Carter should have provided the material to the Court the second he was in receipt of it!
This, as far as I am concerned, this again, amounts to an inference in the administration of justice.
Terrible Conduct
This may seem like a low blow thing to say, but – the guy is a complete dick.
He argued about EVERYTHING, could agree NOTHING, wrote the most ill-tempered of letters (even after Pilley’s fraud convictions), threatened continually “costs orders”, “indemnity costs”, you name it – basically he did all the things I describe in my solicitors nonsense; he wrote the textbook on.
Carter’s conduct was so bad that at one point a poor Judge had to be provided with two chronologies, because he refused to allow a simple set of dates and facts to be adduced – instead demanding his clients’ own, complete with partisan arguments.
He’s clearly useless at his job
All of Carter’s claims brought on behalf of his clients have been abandoned or lost, many with adverse views of the courts within its judgements and cost his clients millions of pounds in pursuing pointless claims – as pointed out by (the then) Mr Justice Green in the Administrative Court.
Despite the aggressive correspondence, the threats and the questionable ‘truth’ in his witness statements; when the tables were turned and Damian Carter became a Defendant in contempt proceedings – instead of attempt to front it out as a solicitor – he weaseled out by instructing reputable law firm Kennedys Law (competitor of Weightmans) to represent him. The guy is a complete coward.
Conclusion
At best Damian Michael Carter of Weightmans is a solicitor with highly questionable ethics, seemingly prepared to take instructions from clients blatantly committing crimes and turning a blind eye to it – all whilst engaging in conduct to mislead the Court and interfere with proper and legitimate investigations by the criminal and regulatory authorities.
At worst, questions have to be asked as why Carter did continue to blindly defend the company and the company’s owner despite the evidence stacked up against them, where most solicitors would refuse to continue acting………only the Solicitors Regulatory Authority will be able to find the true motivation to that.
The bottom line: If you’re thinking of instructing Damian Carter at Weightmans, you may want to think carefully before you do – he doesn’t know how to agree anything, he loses in Court time and time again, he will cost you a fortune, your money will likely be wasted or spent unnecessarily……..and you may end up with an adverse Judgement against you……. and end up millions of pounds in debt to your opponent…….even if he tells you that you have a great case. And there is the fact he’s a complete dick.
If you happen to be an opponent of Carter’s…….be VERY careful! He has a propensity not only mislead his opponents, but also the Court – and he certainly won’t abide by the standard disclosure rules!
You’ve been warned! Watch out for Damian Carter of Weightmans!
8 thoughts on “Watch out for Damian Carter, partner and solicitor at Weightmans LLP”