Episode #8 - Patron Law, Mark Lewis and costs
An episode about the business model of Patron Law and Mark Lewis; the issues, incentives and risks of that model; and how it may have worked for one of Mr Lewis' clients in my litigation.
This is episode #8 about the High Court defamation and privacy case Wilson v Mendelsohn, Newbon and Cantor. This episode analyses the business model of Mark Lewis and his firm Patron Law Ltd. It looks at what issues, incentives and risks the business model may create and how this could affect Mr Lewis’ conduct in my litigation and other litigation. Some of it is a bit technical, but there’s no way round that. This episode is context to my application to the High Court for wasted costs against Mr Lewis and Patron Law which will - hopefully - recover all my costs in the litigation and mean that I do not have to bankrupt Mr Lewis’ clients Eddy Cantor and James Mendelsohn. If you want the full story, start with episode #1 here.
There are four parts to this episode. Part 1 explains how Patron Law’s business model works. Part 2 is about Mr Lewis and then identifies some of the risks his and Patron Law’s business model may create. Part 3 is about one of Mr Lewis’/Patron Law’s clients in my litigation, Mr Cantor, and how Mr Lewis’ conduct may have worked for him. Part 4 makes some general conclusions about what has happened and how Mr Lewis’ conduct may have affected other litigation.
Part 1 - Patron Law’s business model
Patron Law is a limited company with three directors who are solicitors: Mr Lewis, Benjamin May and Alexander Zivancevic. In terms of ownership, Mr May owns at least 50% of the shares; and Georgios Misailidis, who lives in Cyprus, owns at least 25% of the shares. This means at least 75% of Patron Law’s shares are owned by Mr May and Mr Misailidis. While Patron Law has around 15 ‘partners’ these are not partners in the conventional sense. The ‘partners’ have limited involvement in running the firm because that is the responsibility of the three directors. And the ‘partners’ must have limited financial interest in the firm, since the shares are mostly owned by Mr May and Mr Misailidis.
Patron Law has three ‘offices’:
The ‘Head Office’ is 2A Norland Place, a small mews house in West London. This is also Patron Law’s registered address. It would be impossible for a significant number of staff to work here and it seems the ‘Head Office’ must be a more or less ‘virtual’ office.
The ‘City Office’ is in Ludgate House, on Fleet Street in central London. Ludgate House is run by Regus a workspace provider. Regus offers various packages, including: ‘Business Address’ (basically a mail handling service - £85 per month); ‘Virtual Office’ (where you get a dedicated phone number, a shared receptionist to answer the phone, and access to shared workspaces - £159 per month); and ‘Virtual Office Plus’ (where you also get dedicated office space for a certain number of days each month - £255 per month). I’ve no idea what contract Patron Law has with Regus but whatever it is, it must be much cheaper than running a ‘real’ city office like many firms do.
The ‘Elstree Office’ is at Catalyst House, in Elstree, Hertfordshire about 15 miles north of central London. This is managed office space with meeting rooms. Presumably this is the office where people work, though again it seems likely that Patron Law’s footprint here is minimal to save costs.
In addition to 15 ‘partners’, Patron Law also has around 15 solicitors or paralegals and various support staff. Because Patron Law is a small company and does not file detailed accounts, it is hard to judge from the financial statements filed at Companies House how the business functions. It seems from the number of employees declared, though, that most of the partners and solicitors must be self-employed. So, in addition to having ‘virtual’ offices, Patron Law operates to a degree as a ‘virtual’ firm. Most of its partners are likely to be self-employed and have fee-sharing agreements. The way fee-sharing works is that the firm provides central services - IT, compliance, insurance, office support, costs and billing, etc - but the partners are then more or less independent in terms of recruiting clients and doing legal work. A common arrangement for ‘virtual’ firms is that fees are split 70:30, so the self-employed solicitor gets 70% of any fees and the firm gets 30%. Sometimes there is a floor in terms of a minimum amount self-employed solicitors have to pay the firm before the fee sharing agreement comes into effect.
So, the overall picture at Patron Law is that it does not operate as a conventional firm of solicitors does in terms of business organisation, office locations, and the way in which legal work is done. There is nothing wrong with this model as such. Some ‘virtual’ firms are up front about their model. Summerfield Browne Solicitors, for example, give the information on the main page of their website and explain the features and benefits of the model. They say:
We are a modern and progressive law firm, and operate a new legal services business model, which significantly reduces our overheads, and which means we can transfer the benefit of those cost savings back to our customers, in the form of competitive fee rates.
…
Our business model means that clients have the option of choosing either, remote delivery of legal services which is simple, effective and cost efficient, or alternatively, the more traditional delivery of legal services via meetings in person at either, our serviced offices, or at the client’s business premises.
It seems there is nothing similar on Patron Law’s website about their business model, reduced fees, remote delivery, and offices.
As to the reason why Patron Law runs two more or less ‘virtual’ offices in central London, one obvious reason is to try to increase hourly rates. There are guideline rates published each year by the court for the assessment of solicitors’ fees. The rates depend on the type of work, how much experience the solicitor has, and where the solicitor works. To give some examples, in 2024 the rates for a solicitor with over 8 years’ experience were:
£398 per hour for London band 2 (not heavy commercial and corporate work) which includes postcodes EC1 to 4, W1, WC1, WC2 and SW1.
£301 per hour for London band 3 which is everywhere in London except for the postcodes above.
£278 per hour for national band 1 which covers the home counties and most big cities.
Patron Law’s ‘Elstree Office’ is national band 1, so £278 per hour. Its ‘Head Office’ is London band 3, so £301. And its ‘City Office’ is in EC4, London band 2, so £398. It seems possible that a purpose of Patron Law’s ‘virtual’ offices is to increase the hourly rates Patron Law claims. It may make sense to have a ‘virtual’ office in EC4 if it means you can ‘hike’ the £278 per hour by 45% to £398. It seems, however, this may not be entirely proper if the £398 per hour is based on a ‘virtual’ office, where none of the partners or solicitors work for any significant amount of time, when other firms claim £398 based on a ‘real’ office where the partners, solicitors and support staff actually work. In my case, Mr Lewis claimed costs at £500 per hour as though he was working out of the ‘City Office’ when - see below - he must have been working from home in Israel.
Part 2 - Mark Lewis
Mr Lewis has worked at Patron Law since 2019. He left his previous firm - Seddons Solicitors - after he was fined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for offensive social media posts. These included comments targeted at Jewish people. Mr Lewis has stated that he moved to Israel in 2018 because he no longer felt safe in the UK due to anti-Semitism. Mr Lewis’ move to Israel with his wife Mandy Blumenthal attracted significant media interest. He was quoted as saying “Europe in my view is finished” and they were both interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire for the BBC - the full interview is here. You can make up your own mind, but both Mr Lewis and Ms Blumenthal seem a bit gormless? According to his LinkedIn profile, Mr Lewis now lives in Netanya which is about 20 miles north of Tel Aviv. Mr Lewis and Ms Blumenthal came back to the UK in August 2024 for a romantic holiday which included a stop-off at the Edinburgh fringe to abuse the audience at a Reginald D Hunter gig. They initially sought anonymity over the fracas and their surely false claims included that they had “no intention of reporting what happened to authorities or sharing their story with the world” and they were “terrified … of exposing themselves”. They did not seem very terrified.
It seems that Mr Lewis may have struggled to get a job at a conventional firm given his employment history and that he lives in Israel. It seems Patron Law has given Mr Lewis the resources and authority he need to continue acting for clients in defamation law. Mr Lewis is the only ‘partner’ at Patron Law doing defamation work. He is assisted by Megan Tolkien and she did some of the work on my litigation. Obviously, I am not certain if Mr Lewis is employed and/or self-employed in relation to his legal work, or what the terms of any fee-sharing agreement with Patron Law is. That is, understandably, all confidential.
Having set the scene I want to make six observations about the business model of Patron Law and Mr Lewis.
First, Patron Law’s business model must dramatically reduce the costs or overheads of doing business. Compared to a conventional firm of solicitors in central London with offices that accommodate all staff, it must be far cheaper to run a ‘virtual’ firm with ‘virtual’ offices.
Second, Patron Law having a ‘Head Office’ and ‘City Office’ and a large number of ‘partners’ gives a misleading impression that Patron Law is a more substantial firm that operates on a conventional basis. It seems to me to have an air of artificiality about it that sits uneasily with the principle that solicitors must act with integrity. As noted above, Summerfield Browne is up front about its business model. In contrast, Patron Law’s ‘Head Office’ and ‘City Office’ suggest something more substantial than a small mews house and shared workspace? The ‘get up’ is surely intended to give the impression of something different from the reality?
Third - and this is a complex issue - it seems possible that Patron Law’s business model may lead to an increased risk of partners and solicitors engaging in improper or negligent conduct than in a conventional firm. Mr Lewis is the only partner doing defamation work, he works more or less independently, and he does not work out of a conventional office. It seems that working out of an office with others doing the same sort of work is likely to reduce the risk of partners or solicitors engaging in improper or negligent conduct because people are more likely to discuss their work, formally or informally, to work collaboratively on files, and to be more aware of developing risks. It seems unlikely that Ms Tolkein - as a junior member of staff - would have the knowledge or power to be confident in raising the alarm about Mr Lewis’ conduct.
I do not know what systems Patron Law has in place to prevent improper or negligent conduct, but it seems that, on the face of it, the business model may increase the risks of (a) partners or solicitors engaging in improper or negligent conduct; and (b) this not being picked up by others, in particular Mr May who is Patron Law’s compliance officer. Not only is this a theoretical risk, it seems - as will become clear in future posts - to have actually happened in that Mr Lewis engaged in very seriously improper and negligent conduct that was not identified at the time by Mr May or anyone else at Patron Law.
Fourth - and this is a complex and nuanced issue - it seems Patron Law’s business model may change the dynamics of costs, fees, etc. In a conventional firm, partners and solicitors generally receive monthly payments (whether salary or otherwise) independently of what happens in their cases, and it is the firm rather than individuals who primarily attract and distribute work within the firm. In contrast - and assuming Mr Lewis has a fee sharing agreement and does much of his work on a no-win, no fee basis - then he only gets paid when he wins cases. In a conventional firm, the risks of doing work and not getting paid, whether immediately or at all, are to a greater extent borne by the firm rather than individual solicitors. In contrast, Mr Lewis may bear these risks himself and defamation law is difficult in terms of predicting what the outcome of cases will be. For a ‘partner’ who only gets paid on a fee-sharing basis, the nexus between the work and getting paid is much closer, and they are in a real sense ‘playing’ with their own time and money. I address this issue in more detail below, but for now my point is that it seems to me that Mr Lewis’/Patron Law’s business model may influence how Mr Lewis conducts cases and advises clients. It hardly seems controversial to suggest that a person’s conduct can be affected by the financial consequences to themselves of their conduct.
Fifth, in relation to Mr Lewis personally, it seems he is incompetent. I wrote in episode #2 about Mr Lewis’ advice to Dr Newbon in August 2020 and it appears Mr Lewis did not understand that a defamatory publication does not need to name the person defamed if they are identifiable - as in my case - by a photo. Even as late as December 2021, Mr Lewis advised Mr Cantor “The photos do not even say who the person is”. The defamatory publication had a clear and instantly recognisable photo of me, so there was no need to name me. Tolley v Fry [1931] AC 333 is one of the most famous cases in defamation law which established a claimant may be identified by image or sketch. It really is inexplicable how Mr Lewis was unaware of one of the most famous cases in defamation law. There is more to come on this, but it also seems that Mr Lewis does not understand, or does not care about complying with, his duties when it comes to the SRA’s Principles and Code of Conduct for solicitors.
Sixth, it seems Mr Lewis allows his political motivations to affect his legal work. He was a director of UK Lawyers for Israel and it was reported in the Times of Israel that “Lewis never hides his beliefs, making it plain, where necessary, of his love of Israel if that might lead to a conflict of interest”. It seems to me that what you want is a solicitor who is exclusively focused on your interests and not their love for Israel. Further, on the basis of information provided by Mr Cantor, Mr Lewis was motivated by a hatred of me and he hoped to use the litigation to bankrupt me. It seems Mr Lewis let his political motivations get in the way of a lucid assessment of the merits of my claims and what was likely to happen. All of these six points need to be borne in mind for what follows.
Part 3 - Mark Lewis’/Patron Law’s business model and his own clients.
Having set out how Patron Law’s business model works and the risks it might create, this part looks at how this may have worked out in my litigation, specifically by reference to Mr Cantor, one of the defendants.
In my litigation, Mr Lewis acted on no-win, no-fee or conditional fee agreement (CFA) basis for both Dr Newbon and Mr Cantor. Mr Lewis also acted on a CFA for Dr Newbon in his litigation against Michael Rosen. In my case, neither Dr Newbon nor Mr Cantor had any insurance to cover my costs. What this meant was that if they had to settle or lost at trial, they were likely to have to pay my costs. I do not know for sure, but it seems Dr Newbon may have understood that Mr Lewis acting for him pro bono or on a CFA basis meant he would have had no liability for costs at all. Certainly, Mr Cantor’s understanding was that he would not have to pay me any costs.
I have a copy of one of Mr Lewis’/Patron Law’s CFAs from 2023 and I assume that Dr Newbon and Mr Cantor had similar CFAs. I set out some of the key aspects of the CFA. I have inserted some comments that are in [square brackets].
In relation to fees, the CFA states:
The following normal hourly rates apply for work done by Patron Law …
Grade A (Solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience) £575 (plus VAT)
What this means is that Mr Lewis charged £575 per hour (£690 inc VAT). There are various observations that can be made about that. First, it is a lot more than the summary assessment hourly rates above (£398 was the highest rate for the ‘City Office’). Second, while Patron Law’s business model reduces costs, it seems the savings are not passed onto clients in terms of hourly rates. If this is right, the savings are used to increase profits for Mr Lewis and Patron Law. Third, if Mr Lewis has a 70:30 costs-sharing split with Patron Law, then he personally receives £402 per hour for his work. Fourth, £575 overall and £402 for Mr Lewis seem extremely high rates in general, and absurdly high given Mr Lewis’ level of competence. To put things in perspective, as a litigant in person the most I could charge was £19 an hour and I understand defamation law a lot better than Mr Lewis does.
In relation to what happens if the client wins, the CFA states:
5.1 If the Client wins the Claim, the Client will be liable for Patron Law’s Fees, together with Disbursements.
…
5.3 Subject to Clause 6.7 below [there is no clause 6.7 in the agreement], the Client’s liability under Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 [which apply if the client loses] above [clauses 6.1. and 6.2 are actually below] is limited to the extent of sums that are agreed or ordered to be recovered from the Opponents by way of costs in respect of the Claim and the relevant work respectively save that the Client shall at all times be liable for the full amount payable or paid by Patron Law for any Disbursements. …
The effect is: a client only becomes liable for Patron Law’s fees if they win; the client’s liability is limited to the costs that can be recovered from the other side; and the client is liable for their own disbursements. All of this makes sense from a client’s perspective. It does, though, raise a question as to whether the £575 rate has been inflated because Patron Law is limited to what can be recovered from the other side.
In relation to the client terminating the agreement, the CFA states:
13.1 The Client can end this Agreement in writing at any time. If the Client does so before the Claim is concluded then, subject to Clauses 19-21 below [right to cancel the CFA within 14 days], the Client must pay Patron Law’s Fees for the work done to the termination date and Disbursements in full.
So, if a client wants to cancel the CFA, they have to pay all Patron Law’s fees, including Mr Lewis’ fees at £575 per hour (£690 inc VAT), for the work that has been done. As noted above, £575 is extremely high in general and absurdly high given Mr Lewis’ level of competence.
In relation to Patron Law terminating the agreement, the CFA states:
13.2 Patron Law can end this Agreement if:
(a) it believes the Client no longer has a reasonable prospect of Winning; or
(b) if the Client misleads Patron Law in relation to any information given during the Claim or is in breach of his or her responsibilities under Clause 12.1 [duty of client to give full and proper instructions] above; or
(c) (if an individual) the Client dies or for any reason can no longer give Patron Law timely or coherent instruction; or
(d) … [only applies to clients which are companies]
(e) if the Client rejects the advice of Patron Law about making a settlement with the Opponent.
So, Patron Law can end the CFA if the client: no longer has a reasonable prospect of winning - presumably what is ‘reasonable’ is assessed by Mr Lewis; provides misleading information or fails to give instructions; dies (as Dr Newbon did); or rejects advice about about settling - presumably this advice again comes from Mr Lewis. The CFA explains that if the client loses then “usually, the Client will be liable for the legal fees and Disbursements of the Opponents”.
I have tried to come up with a metaphor for all the above from the perspective of Mr Cantor and the best I can do is to compare the litigation to being a passenger in an aeroplane piloted by Mr Lewis, but the flight has the following undesirable features:
Mr Lewis is an incompetent pilot.
Mr Lewis is charging absurdly inflated fees for every hour the plane is in flight. You might end up being liable for these fees.
If you insist that Mr Lewis has to land the plane, you have to pay all of his absurdly inflated fees for every hour the plane has been in flight.
If Mr Lewis decides to keep flying, he may receive for himself from the other side £402 for every hour the plane has already been in flight and for every hour the plane is kept in flight.
If Mr Lewis decides to land the plane, he will get paid nothing for all the work he has done.
If Mr Lewis decides to land the plane, he is responsible for getting other work as a pilot, and may have no other work to do. Mr Lewis deciding to land the plane might mean he is sat around earning nothing.
Mr Lewis’ can refuse to land the plane if he believes that you have a reasonable prospect of winning. As to Mr Lewis’ belief and what is reasonable, see (1) above about Mr Lewis’ competence; and (4), (5) and (6) above about the financial impact on Mr Lewis of landing the plane.
No matter how long Mr Lewis keeps the plane flying, you will get nothing because you are the defendant in the litigation.
No matter how long Mr Lewis keeps the plane flying, neither he nor Patron Law will have any liability for the other side’s costs. It is only you who may be liable for the other side’s costs.
For every hour Mr Lewis keeps the plane flying, your potential liability for the other side’s costs increases.
If my metaphor is right, this is a nightmare scenario. It is the sort of thing that might cause you to wake up in the middle of the night panicking.
The plane cannot keep flying indefinitely because there will be a trial that will bring the litigation to an end. From Mr Lewis’ perspective, flying the plane to trial makes financial sense in that if he has - say - a 10% chance of winning this means he will get £402 an hour for all the work he has done. But, from his client’s perspective, this means there is 90% chance of losing and having to pay the other side’s costs. If I were the client, I’d be worried that - on top of not having a competent grasp of defamation law - Mr Lewis’ direct personal and significant financial interests would affect his advice and decision-making about going to trial. When Mr Lewis was acting for Mr Cantor, he discouraged him from settling my case and frustrated mediation. When Mr Lewis stopped acting for Mr Cantor, he undermined the advice of Mr Cantor’s new solicitors that he should settle my claim. When Mr Cantor’s new solicitors stopped acting, Mr Lewis encouraged Mr Cantor to go to trial and secretly carried on providing him with advice. All of this cost Mr Lewis nothing and maintained his chance of recovering some of his fees. It cost Mr Cantor around £100,000.
Part 4 - Mark Lewis’/Patron Law’s business model and everyone else
In addition to what is described above being a nightmare scenario for Mr Cantor, it was not great for me on the other side. While I wanted to settle the claim, it was effectively impossible for Mr Cantor to settle unless Mr Lewis permitted him to do so. I offered to negotiate a nominal settlement - say £5 - with Mr Cantor - see episode #4 here - about which Mr Lewis’ advice to Mr Cantor was “I would not advise you to accept it as it does not put you in a better position than you would be in if you lost the case”. That advice makes no sense at all. Mr Cantor’s CFA presumably meant that - had he wanted to negotiate a nominal settlement against Mr Lewis’ advice - then Mr Cantor would have been liable for all Mr Lewis’ fees. At the time I made my offer, those fees were about £40,000, so Mr Cantor would have had to pay these if he wanted to settle with me. It seems obvious to me that Mr Lewis’ advice to reject my offer put the financial interests of himself and Patron Law above the financial (and psychological) interests of Mr Cantor.
Given what is above and what is in episode #2 and episode #5, I want to express two wider opinions about Mr Lewis and Patron Law and its other directors Mr May and Mr Zivancevic. First, I find it incredible that Patron Law maintains its relationship with Mr Lewis. Mr May and Mr Zivancevic must surely recognise that Mr Lewis has acted improperly or negligently, if not outrageously. Second, if Patron Law maintains its relationship with Mr Lewis then, because of the serious risks he poses to his clients, they should get someone independent who has expertise in defamation law to review all Mr Lewis’ files. Patron Law must make sure Mr Lewis has properly explained the risks to his clients and he is not pursuing cases on the basis of his own financial interests or political motivations.
Finally, there is the wider picture here. As I said in the introduction, I hope to make an application for wasted costs against Mr Lewis and Patron Law and, as part of the process, there are going to be some disturbing revelations about Mr Lewis’ conduct. What concerns me is that it seems unlikely that Mr Lewis’ conduct is confined to my case. I refer to two other cases below, though there are many more. I do not claim any special knowledge about these cases beyond the information and documents that are publicly available. It seems to me that in these two cases Mr Lewis’ clients may have been trapped in an aeroplane piloted by Mr Lewis in the same way as Mr Cantor was in my case.
The first case is the defamation claim brought by Dr Newbon against Mr Rosen. I just cannot see how the claim made any sense at all from Dr Newbon’s perspective given the evidence and the financial risks to him. While Dr Newbon’s liability for Mr Lewis’/Patron Law’s costs were presumably covered by a CFA, the risks of having to pay Mr Rosen’s costs were high. Mr Rosen instructed Payne Hicks Beach solicitors and, unlike Patron Law, Payne Hicks Beach have ‘genuine’ offices in WC2 so can properly charge £500 per hour. It was highly likely that Dr Newbon would have to pay Mr Rosen’s costs, and the amount of those costs could have been huge. That would have been financially devastating for Dr Newbon and his family.
My worry is that Mr Lewis’ advice to Dr Newbon to issue a claim against Mr Rosen may have been affected by Mr Lewis’ competence, his own financial interests, and his political motivations. Dr Newbon would have been required to disclose documents which showed that he originally intended to apologise to - rather than to sue - Mr Rosen. Dr Newbon’s widow has written about how Dr Newbon had been living a secret or double life and that she knew nothing about the litigation. Dr Newbon was sucked into campaigning against anti-Semitism with Labour Against Antisemitism, and it seems to have had an awful impact on him. Dr Newbon’s messages disclosed in my litigation suggest that Mr Lewis encouraged him to believe he was at little or no risk in my case and it seems possible that Mr Lewis’ advice to Dr Newbon in his litigation against Mr Rosen was similar.
The second case is Miller and Power v Turner [2023] EWHC 2799 (KB), where Mr Lewis acted for the claimants Daniel Miller and Nina Power in their defamation claim against Luke Turner. The case went to trial and Mr Lewis’ clients lost. What seems clear about this case is that the chances of Mr Miller and Ms Power succeeding at trial were very low. Mr Turner had made various statements about Mr Miller and Ms Power, including that they were fascists and neo-Nazis who had engaged in a campaign of harassment against him. Bizarrely, Mr Miller and Ms Power chose not to contest that they were fascists or neo-Nazis, but claimed their reputations had been harmed by the allegations of harassment. Given they had expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler, defending the fascism allegations would have been problematic to say the least. It seems unlikely that additional damage to their reputation was caused by the accusation of harassment on top of the accusation of being fascists? This seems to be the basis on which Mr Miller and Ms Power lost at trial.
While I have no sympathy for Mr Miller and Ms Power, it seems possible that - as in my case - Mr Lewis’ conduct was motivated and the case maintained to trial on the basis of his own significant financial interests. It would be interesting to know if - as I did in my case - Mr Turner made a reasonable offer which Mr Lewis’ clients ought to have accepted, but which they were prevented from accepting because Mr Lewis advised against it. If that happened then - as with Mr Cantor - Mr Miller and Ms Power were obliged to carry on. They too may have been trapped in an aeroplane piloted by Mr Lewis. The end result was that Mr Miller and Ms Power lost at trial, they both went bankrupt and, presumably, Mr Turner was left out of pocket.
If I am right and Mr Lewis has been running cases on the basis of his own direct personal and significant financial interests, then this is a huge problem because other people - his own clients and those on the other side - will have suffered serious financial harm by his conduct. There is also the psychological harm caused intensely stressful and risky litigation. Given that Patron Law: (a) has effectively given Mr Lewis the authority to allow him to operate like this; and (b) appears not to have effectively supervised him; then it seems to me that (c) Patron Law and its insurers ought to be liable to those affected by Mr Lewis’ conduct. The cost of all this could run into £100,000s.
Again, there is a lot more to come from me on this and I’ll continue to publicly unravel Mr Lewis’ conduct and what the impact of his conduct has been on others.
Phew! My very best wishes, Mr Wilson!
It seems like a long way to go, yet, unravelling this Gordian Knot. Unfortunately, no Alexander to assist.