Sarah Susan Johnson
I instructed Miss Sarah Susan Johnson (Kenworthy's Chambers) by public access for a non-molestation order variation. One conference, £800. She did not mention the application form (FL403) or the statute that governs it (section 49 of the Family Law Act 1996) at any point until I raised them, despite this being my clear instructions on the emails prior to the conference, and instead directed the conference toward a contested trial estimated at £10,000–15,000. On the recording she concedes that a trial could run longer than the order itself remains in force.
She told me a non-molestation order carries "a power of arrest attached to it." It does not. That power was abolished for non-molestation orders on 1 July 2007 (Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); the order cites section 42A, a criminal-offence notice, not a power of arrest. When I put this to her in writing, she repeated the error in her response, calling the section 42A note "the actual Power of Arrest on the order." She also did not mention that the burden of proof in these applications rests on the applicant (C v C [1998] 1 FLR 554).
The conference was recorded throughout; her attendance note and written response are retained. I filed the FL403 myself and instructed other counsel. I do not believe she had any interest in my needs nor instructions — the conference stayed on the quoted £10,000–15,000 trial, despite trial in this case being the most ridiculous option, multitudes more ridiculous than ignoring the order entirely. This is entirely what the FL403 application is for, so you don't take it to trial. At the end of the conference, I informed her it was recorded and asked if I could use it to analyze. She denied, and said "it's very frowned upon", despite paying £800. She did not inform me I couldn't record at the beginning of the call, nor tell me I am fully within my rights to use the recording. She simply did not want the call recorded.
After I complained to her clerks, her response read to me as retaliation, and seemed to accuse me of the very things I was hiring her to deal with, despite significant evidence to the contrary. She had no interest in reading any of the evidence, just to get me to agree to trial in a country I am over 1000km away from, where trial would take longer than the actual order is in place for. I do not believe she had any interesting in the hearing I wanted her to attend, just in seeing if I would agree to irrational litigation. When requesting a refund, she attacked parts of my application in ways she didn't mention at all during the conference, in what appears to be retaliation, and didn't refute any of her legal errors I pointed out, and any kind of refund was denied.
I would not recommend Miss Johnson for public-access family work, nor Kenworthy's referrals to a barrister.