Written by By Contributor
24th August 2024
Richard Walford, a solicitor at Gilbert Stephens Solicitors in Exeter, Devon, has been accused of advising his client, Margaret Sheppard, that she could get away with a false version of events that suited her – at the expense of her stepson, Ian Sheppard. The case happened 17 years ago but Walford is still practicing, despite Ian Sheppard’s continuing protestations.
Following the death of Ian’s father, Graham Sheppard, in August 2005 it came to Ian’s attention that Margaret had lied to him about his father’s wills.
In particular, she said that while Graham’s last will of 2nd August 2005 was invalid, as it had not been signed in front of the supposed witnesses (her parents), an earlier will, dated 12th October 2004, was “definitely valid.” This was a blatant lie.
Without any valid will Graham would have died intestate, Margaret and her brother Chris Barling would not have been executors, and the outcome would have been much less favourable for Margaret.
It is a strict requirement under the Wills Act 1837 that a will is signed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses.
The fact that the earlier will was also invalid only came to Ian’s attention in 2006, when he checked the date and realised that on that date his father was not in the same location as the witnesses (Margaret’s elderly parents again).
In fact, Graham had travelled by train from Teignmouth in Devon, where he lived with Margaret, on 11th October 2004 to a village called Inkpen in Berkshire where he still owned the former family home where Ian grew up with his brother Richard. Graham went there to hire a tractor-mower and cut the grass, which had grown very long.
Fake Evidence and Lies
When Ian challenged Margaret and her brother Chris and said the earlier will had been invalid as well, for “want of due execution”, Chris phoned Ian and offered him £50,000 not to take the matter any further. When Ian refused, as he wanted the truth to be admitted, they went quiet. Then, a week or so later, Ian received a letter from Richard Walford, a solicitor at a firm called Gilbert Stephens in Exeter.
This contained fabricated diary pages by Margaret and witness statements which contained lies about Graham being there at the time Margaret’s parents signed as witnesses.
However, Ian was soon to obtain records which essentially proved that Graham had hired the tractor-mower. The record for that hiring was marked 10/11/2004 but Ian knew it was clearly an error, it should have been 11/10/2024. He suspected the hire-shop owner, who knew Margaret, had altered the records (a member of staff inadvertently sending them to Ian when he requested them).
The weather that November 2004 was far wetter and colder than the sunny day that was the 12th October (totally unsuitable for cutting grass) and, in any case, Ian had been aware that his father had gone to his house at Inkpen on 11th to cut the grass, as he met Graham near London on 12th, and they discussed it. Ian told two others that he had met his father, a fellow law student and his grandmother, who he had phoned that evening.
Ian was also aware while meeting his father on 12th October that Margaret was on her way to London to meet Graham before a planned trip to Rome, and that she had been anxious to have Graham’s will ‘witnessed’ before they left – as Graham was already terminally ill and vulnerable to potentially fatal health issues when travelling by air.
Suspicions Arise After Court Hearing
However, when the case finally came to Court, judge Nicholas Warren KC (then QC) decided that it was Ian’s case that had been fabricated! And he intimated that he had no respect for Ian being a professional journalist.
That evening Ian looked up judge Warren and found that he appeared to be a close contemporary of Margaret’s uncle, Gerald Barling KC, another judge. Barling (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Margaret’s late father) was at Oxford with Warren, graduated in the same year (they are the same age), and was called to the Bar on the same day.
Ian was never asked pre-trial about any particular judge presiding and has always been very suspicious given that Judge Warren completely ignored the mower records that were so central to Ian’s case that Margaret’s version of events was based on lies and fake evidence.
Ian faced a litany of litigation tactics in the case and maintains that litigation and litigators should be subject to far stricter regulation, under an Act of Parliament. At the moment, solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Thus, Ian would like to see such legislation put in place to stop the tactics that hinder those with few resources bringing cases to Court. Often such people, like Ian, who had legal qualifications but is not a lawyer, have to bring their case ‘In Person’. While anyone is allowed to do this, it leaves them even more exposed to the tactics of lawyers – many of which should be outlawed or much more tightly regulated, Ian believes. Otherwise, how can there ever be true Access to Justice?
Ian Sheppard stated: “What caught Richard Walford out is that initially I used lawyers and was running out of cash fast, it was so expensive. But I was studying law part-time and decided to carry on ‘in person’ and this I could take it all the way to the High Court.
“Having already presented their fabricated case in front of a Master at the Royal Courts of Justice in a preliminary hearing, they had no choice but to carry on as I refused to settle at any point.”
I believe that in the end they used the only tactic left available to them – fixing the judge so the case went in their favour. When this comes out, it will be legal dynamite,” he said. “And because I KNOW the truth, I have no fear of stating my case.”
#LegalNews #SolicitorMisconduct #WillDispute #PublicInterest #LegalEthics
Public Interest Statement: This article highlights a significant legal and ethical issue concerning the conduct of a practising solicitor in a longstanding will dispute. The case involves allegations of fabricated evidence and potential judicial conflicts of interest, raising concerns about the integrity of legal processes and access to justice. The public has a vested interest in ensuring that legal professionals are held to the highest standards of conduct, particularly in matters that affect the rights and interests of individuals in vulnerable positions. This discussion contributes to ongoing debates about the need for stricter regulation and oversight within the legal profession to safeguard the principles of fairness and justice.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is based on allegations and claims made by individuals involved in the case. It is important to note that all parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The content is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal counsel for any related matters. The publisher disclaims any liability for errors or omissions and does not endorse the views expressed in the article.