Episode #4 - Mr Cantor’s refusal of a nominal settlement
Why did Mr Lewis refuse on behalf of Mr Cantor a nominal offer to settle the claims?
This is episode 4 of what happened in the High Court defamation and privacy case Wilson v Mendelsohn, Newbon and Cantor. This post is about the rejection in principle of an offer by me to settle with Mr Edward Cantor for a nominal sum of money. It was Mr Mark Lewis of Patron Law Solicitors who rejected my offer on behalf of Mr Cantor. There are four parts to this post: part 1 explains my offer, Mr Cantor’s rejection of it, and his counter-offer; part 2 gives some important context; part 3 offers some opinions about what happened; and part 4 explains what the SRA’s view on all this is.
If you want to know the background: episode 1 (today we have naming of parts) is here. In that post I explain what happened and that I am publishing these posts in the public interest. My hope is that if people know what happened to me and the defendants, it might prevent anything similar happening to anyone else. Episode 2 (Mark Lewis’ initial legal analysis) is here. In that post I explain Mr Lewis’ analysis of my claims, why in my opinion his analysis was incompetent, what the likely consequences of his analysis were for his clients, and about his threats to bankrupt me. Episode 3 (the efforts to get me into trouble with the police) is here. In that post I explain that Mr Lewis encouraged and made reports about me to the police and I speculate as to the potential reasons for this.
The series recap is: in December 2018, someone posted false defamatory statements about me on Facebook, including that I was a “freak who takes pictures of kids” outside a school. The post was deleted shortly after it was published because a police officer went to the house of the person who posted it to tell her to delete it. As a result of the Facebook post, there were intimidatory incidents that caused me to fear for the safety of me and my family. The Facebook post ought to have disappeared, but Mr James Mendelsohn took a screenshot of it in the short time it was online. He gave the screenshot to Dr Pete Newbon. In August 2020, some 20 months after the Facebook post had been deleted, Dr Newbon and Mr Cantor posted the screenshot on X/Twitter. I was - as you might expect - unhappy about this. In July 2021, after the defendants insisted - apparently on their solicitors’ advice - they had done nothing wrong and on their right to publish the screenshot, I issued a High Court claim for defamation and misuse of private information…
Part 1 - My offer to settle and the response
My claim was issued in the High Court in July 2021 against three defendants: Mr Mendelsohn, Dr Newbon and Mr Cantor. In November 2021, Mr Lewis was acting for both Dr Newbon and Mr Cantor; and Mr Daniel Berke of 3D Solicitors was acting for Mr Mendelsohn. On 24 November 2021, I emailed Mr Lewis and offered to negotiate a nominal settlement with Mr Cantor. I stated:
So far as I am aware, Mr Cantor is of limited means and - as someone who has limited income potential - I can see why Mr Cantor might be worried about costs and damages in this case. …
Given Mr Cantor may be of limited means and - on one normative reading of what happened, anyway - bears less moral culpability than Mr Mendelsohn and Dr Newbon, I might, subject to advice from my counsel, be willing to make an offer of settlement. If Mr Cantor concedes my case on meaning and re-publication and gives suitable undertakings in relation to further disclosure and publication, I might be willing to compromise the claim against him on the basis of nominal damages and costs; and that I can recover damages and the lion’s share of costs from Dr Newbon and/or Mr Mendelsohn for Mr Cantor’s re-publication. …
Anyway, I’d be grateful if you could confirm that you have provided Mr Cantor with a copy of this email. Mr Cantor should be clear that I am, subject to taking advice, in principle happy to try to negotiate a nominal settlement with undertakings [not to publish the screenshot again] on the basis of the above. No doubt Mr Cantor will give you instructions and you will confirm what these are.
My offer was to negotiate a nominal settlement - say £5 in damages and a small amount of costs - because Mr Cantor was of limited means. My offer was genuine and I was trying to help Mr Cantor. I thought Mr Cantor would take up my offer and we would negotiate a settlement that protected him. Later the same day, however, Mr Lewis emailed me stating:
I have taken instructions upon your conditional offer. I can confirm that if an offer was made in the form that you suggest it would be rejected. …
My client expects to win. I simply pointed out that my client is impecunious and owns no property, has no income and therefore has financial immunity. I questioned why you would waste money suing him. …
I invite you to drop the claim against Mr Cantor and pay a sum of £4500 plus £900 VAT towards his costs.
My understanding from this was that Mr Cantor was refusing in principle any nominal offer (“if an offer was made in the form that you suggest it would be rejected”) and Mr Cantor would only settle if I paid Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s fees. Mr Cantor presumably expected to win because Mr Lewis had advised him he was going to win. It seems that Mr Lewis’ advice to Mr Cantor was the same as his advice to Dr Newbon. Mr Cantor’s explanation of what happened when I made my offer is in an email from him to me dated 14 May 2024 where he states:
The conversation with Mark Lewis was as follows at that time.
ML [Mark Lewis]: Would you like to settle?
EC [Edward Cantor]: I don’t have any money
ML: So you’re saying that you don’t want to settle?
EC: I’m saying I have no way of settling
There was never any option given to me to settle for nothing. I won’t say that I didn’t know that he was writing you an email asking for £5K or that he [Mr Lewis] did so without my permission. I will say though, that that route was sold to me as the only way of me getting a zero money settlement (i.e. Offer = £5K from you to me would necessitate a negotiation that ends up with neither side paying).
He [Mr Lewis] also told me that there was no way I could lose any money as I would win at least one of the claims and the costs would be so substantial to you that it would end up in credit to my side. This advice began to change dramatically after the result came in. When I said that I won two of the four, he responded with a very different picture.
The amount Mr Lewis wanted for himself and Patron Law before Mr Cantor would settle increased. On 4 November 2022, Mr Lewis’ offer on behalf of Mr Cantor was:
All of this is self-inflicted. If you want a way out, I will accept £75,000 plus VAT towards the costs of Mr Cantor’s defence on the basis that £30,000 is paid within 42 days, and the rest is paid £2500 per month for 18 months.
Part 2 - The context to my offers to settle and the responses
There is a quite a lot to unpack there, and I’ll try to do that now. There are three interrelated issues. The issues are quite complex but they are critical to understanding what was really happening.
The ‘remedy’ issue
The first issue relates to the remedy I was seeking. When the Facebook post had been published originally, there were intimidatory incidents which caused me to fear for the safety of me and my family. I was obviously not going to withdraw (or “drop”) my claim because Mr Cantor would have been free to publish the screenshot of the Facebook post again or to send it to other people for them to publish. As part of any settlement, Mr Cantor had to agree not to publish or disclose the screenshot. That was non-negotiable or a ‘red line’.
Mr Lewis acted for Mr Cantor from 21 May 2021 to 4 May 2023 when Mr Lewis stopped acting because of a conflict between him and Mr Cantor. Throughout that time, Mr Cantor refused to give an undertaking not to publish the screenshot again, presumably on Mr Lewis’ advice. This was in my opinion incompetent advice because refusing to offer an undertaking made Mr Cantor look like a nasty or vindictive person. The judge at trial would see that Mr Cantor was insisting on his right to publish something which put the safety of me and my family - my partner and children - at risk. It also made it more likely that Mr Cantor would have to pay my costs.
For a brief period after Mr Lewis stopped acting for Mr Cantor, Mr David Harris of Chandler Harris Solicitors acted for Mr Cantor. While Mr Harris acted, Mr Cantor offered an undertaking not to further publish the screenshot. This must have been because Mr Harris advised him to offer an undertaking. I expect Mr Harris could see - as any competent solicitor would see - that Mr Cantor refusing to given an undertaking looked completely awful and made it much more likely that Mr Cantor would have to pay some or all of my costs. Mr Harris stopped acting for Mr Cantor after only a week or so. My guess is that this was because Mr Lewis came back on the scene and, despite the conflict between him and Mr Cantor, Mr Lewis continued to advise and encourage Mr Cantor in the background. The offer of an undertaking from Mr Cantor was effectively withdrawn. When Mr Cantor lost at trial he had to undertake not to publish the screenshot because the judge indicated he would make an injunction if Mr Cantor refused. Mr Cantor agreed an undertaking. If he breaches it, he is likely to go to prison.
Mr Cantor’s own-solicitor costs
The second issue is that Mr Cantor had a no-win no-fee or conditional fee agreement (CFA) with Mr Lewis. How CFAs work is complex and there is a future post which analyses the complex risks in my litigation. In general, though, it is claimants - and not a defendant like Mr Cantor - who have CFAs. The reason for this because solicitors recognise that a claimant has a reasonable prospect of recovering money (damages) and the other side will then be liable for the claimant’s costs, so the solicitor will get paid. For claimants ‘winning’ means getting any amount of money from the defendant in damages. But for defendants, ‘winning’ means not having to pay the claimant any money at all in damages. The risks are different for claimants and defendants who have CFAs. It is much more likely that claimants will receive some money, and much less likely that defendants will have to pay no money.
I have not seen Mr Cantor’s CFA but I expect that if he settled my claim for a nominal sum (like £5) and gave an undertaking not to further publish the screenshot then he would have no liability for Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s fees. Mr Cantor would have ‘lost’ and he only had to pay Mr Lewis and Patron Law if he ‘won’. That is how CFAs generally work. It is important to be clear about this: it was - as Mr Harris could no doubt see - obviously in Mr Cantor’s best interests to offer an undertaking and that is why he advised Mr Cantor to do so. But: if Mr Cantor gave an undertaking while Mr Lewis was acting for him, it would mean that Mr Lewis and Patron Law would get paid nothing for the work they had done. You might think that this could help to explain why Mr Lewis did not advise Mr Cantor to offer an undertaking.
Further - and this is an important point - the only people to benefit from Mr Lewis and Patron Law insisting that I pay their fees - whether £4,500 or £75,000 or however much - was Mr Lewis and Patron Law. Mr Cantor would get no benefit from this himself. You might think that this could help to explain why Mr Lewis advised Mr Cantor to refuse any offer of a nominal settlement and that there was a conflict between Mr Cantor’s interests, and Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s interests. If Mr Lewis advised Mr Cantor to settle, Mr Lewis and Patron Law would get paid nothing for the work they had done.
Mr Cantor’s liability for my costs
The third issue is Mr Cantor’s liability for my costs. A claimant or defendant can insure against having to pay the other side’s costs. I expect if Mr Cantor had tried to get insurance in my case, he would have been refused because it was highly likely he would lose.
Mr Cantor had rejected in principle a nominal settlement - like £5. This meant that if I won damages from Mr Cantor of more than £5, I would have beaten my offer and Mr Cantor would almost certainly be liable for at least some of my costs. That is what happened. The judge ordered Mr Cantor to pay me £10,000 in damages and Mr Cantor became jointly liable for my costs for the defamation claim. Mr Cantor had no insurance and owes me around £90,000.
It seems Mr Lewis believed that Mr Cantor had no income or capital, but Mr Cantor is the sole legal owner of his house which is worth around £500,000. I knew this information because I paid the £7 fee and downloaded the title documents for Mr Cantor’s house from HM Land Registry. I am not giving away anything confidential here, this is publicly accessible information available online. Before you sue anyone, it is standard practice to try to find out what assets a defendant has to work out if they will be able to pay your costs. While there is a charge on Mr Cantor’s house in favour of someone called Angela Cantor (who I assumed must be related to Mr Cantor), this cannot amount to its entire value. Mr Cantor must have at least £150,000 of equity in his home which is his. I knew that if Mr Cantor was ordered to pay my costs, I could put a charge on Mr Cantor’s house and apply to the court for an order for sale. Mr Cantor would be forced to sell his house and pay me. That is what is going to happen. That is obviously a bad result for Mr Cantor and his family who live in the house.
Mr Lewis had stated in November 2021 that Mr Cantor had no assets at all, but in December 2022 Mr Lewis filed at court a witness statement that set out his understanding of Mr Cantor’s ownership of his house:
The house was transferred into the Third Defendant’s [Mr Cantor’s] name by his mother, and is subject to a legal charge in her favour, so although nominally in his [Mr Cantor’s] “name”, it was not an asset which he believes could be realised by way of enforcement, and again does not create a liability where none exists otherwise.
Mr Lewis’ statement was obviously untrue because I had the Land Registry documents. I wrote to Mr Lewis to explain his witness statement was untrue and to provide him with a copy of the Land Registry documents. Mr Lewis made a further witness statement for the court where he stated:
However, the Claimant [me] has rightfully pointed out that the Third Defendant’s [Mr Cantor’s] belief that the legal charge registered by his mother prevented any hypothetical enforcement against him was incorrect.
Further I had misunderstood the Third Defendant’s [Mr Cantor’s] instructions relating to the acquisition of the property which was not from the Third Defendant’s mother.
I apologise to this honourable Court for the provision of incorrect information.
Putting matters neutrally, it seems there was some confusion on the part of Mr Cantor and/or Mr Lewis as to Mr Cantor’s purchase and ownership of his home. It seems Mr Lewis never worked out that I could recover my costs by forcing Mr Cantor to sell his house. Mr Lewis wrote to me on 2 May 2023 - just before he stopped acting for Mr Cantor - stating:
Whilst you have identified Mr Cantor’s ownership of his house as an asset, you have not taken account of his liabilities; he does not have cash to make any immediate payment and has substantial liabilities so that you will not recover in full from him even if you get as far to force a sale.
I cannot explain why Mr Lewis believed I would not recover in full from Mr Cantor if I won.
Part 3 - Analysis of the position
It is important to say that I do not know fully what happened and I’ll only find out when the defendants waive privilege. From my perspective: because Mr Cantor refused a nominal settlement in principle (“if an offer was made in the form that you suggest it would be rejected”), it effectively meant I had no more offers to make. I could not make Mr Cantor a better offer than settling for a nominal sum and undertakings. The rejection of any nominal offer meant Mr Cantor was going to trial, and it was a trial he was highly likely to lose.
From Mr Cantor’s perspective: it was true that he was not given an option to settle for nothing, but he was given the opportunity to settle for a nominal sum, say £5 in damages and a small amount of costs. It is very hard to see why Mr Cantor could not raise £5 in damages and a small amount of costs to settle my claim. He must have spent far, far more than that in defending my claim at trial in the High Court in London. It was obviously in Mr Cantor’s financial and psychological interests to get out of the litigation as quickly and as cheaply as possible. He had the chance to do that by negotiating a nominal settlement with me. If what Mr Cantor says is right then, rather than Mr Lewis advising him to take that opportunity, Mr Lewis:
Advised Mr Cantor that there was no way he could lose any money.
Advised Mr Cantor to reject my offer to negotiate a nominal settlement and advised that Mr Cantor should make a counter-offer which required me to pay Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s fees.
Gave this advice even though he knew:
Mr Cantor could lose at trial;
Mr Cantor himself had no liability for Mr Lewis’ fees if he settled because Mr Cantor had a no-win no-fee agreement with Mr Lewis and Patron Law; and
Mr Cantor would not personally benefit from me paying Mr Lewis and Patron Law’s fees.
One of the fundamental principles for solicitors is that they must act in a client’s best interests. In my opinion, there was a fundamental conflict of interest here in that: (a) it was in Mr Cantor’s interests to get out of the litigation as quickly and cheaply as possible; but (b) Mr Lewis and Patron Law acted to effectively prevent that from happening by advising Mr Cantor to say he would only settle if I paid Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s fees. Mr Lewis and Patron Law insisting I pay their fees was not in Mr Cantor’s best interests because it was of no benefit to Mr Cantor. It also prevented Mr Cantor getting what was plainly in his best interests, which was to get out of the litigation by negotiating a nominal settlement with me. In my opinion, Mr Lewis seemed a lot more interested in getting money for himself and Patron Law than protecting Mr Cantor’s interests.
Mills and Reeve, the solicitors who act for Mr Lewis and Patron Law, were provided with a draft of this piece by email. Mr Lewis and Patron Law were given the opportunity to: (a) correct or contest anything; (b) explain why it was not in the public interest to publish; or (c) provide a statement in response. They declined to comment. For the record, I’m happy to include a response if they change their minds.
Part 4 - the Solicitors Regulation Authority
As to what the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) make of all this, I wrote in episodes 2 and 3 about the SRA’s investigation into Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s conduct in relation to the threats to bankrupt me, and encouraging and making reports about me to the police. The SRA has also had all the evidence in relation to what is above. The investigation was done by a solicitor at the SRA; the outcome was approved by an investigation manager at the SRA. The SRA has asked me not to name the people involved at the SRA. However, it seems to me that there is no issue with naming the person who, apparently, had some oversight of the investigation: it was Juliet Oliver, the SRA’s deputy chief executive and general counsel.
The SRA’s decision in relation to Mr Lewis’ advice to Mr Cantor that he could not lose any money was:
We cannot disclose client/solicitor conversations or communications. We do not consider there to have been any regulatory misconduct in this regard.
We cannot disclose client/solicitor conversations or communications. If Mr Cantor believes he was given negligent advice he should consider a claim for professional negligence or make a report to the Legal Ombudsman. This is not a matter of regulatory misconduct.
The SRA’s decision in relation to the conflict between Mr Lewis and Mr Cantor was:
Mr Lewis ceased acting for the defendants [including Mr Cantor] when he identified an own interest conflict [i.e. a conflict between Mr Lewis and Mr Cantor].
Those are the entirety of the SRA’s decisions on these issues. There is nothing more. They are further inadequate decisions in that:
It appears the SRA did not communicate with Mr Cantor before deciding there had been no regulatory misconduct. The SRA failed to properly investigate and take into account what Mr Cantor himself says about the advice he received from Mr Lewis. I cannot understand how the SRA could reach decisions without speaking to Mr Cantor and taking account of what he said.
The SRA’s duties (sections 1 and 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007) include acting in a way which is compatible with: protecting and promoting the public interest; protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; and promoting adherence to professional principles, including that solicitors should maintain proper standards of work and act in the best interests of their clients.
There is evidence - Mr Cantor’s email and Mr Lewis’ letters - to suggest that Mr Cantor received incompetent advice from Mr Lewis; and that Mr Lewis acted in the interests of himself and Patron Law rather than the interests of Mr Cantor. The SRA’s conclusion that incompetent advice is not a matter of regulatory misconduct is inexplicable. The SRA’s duties include: protecting the public, ensuring solicitors maintain proper standards of work, and ensuring solicitors act in the best interests of their clients. It seems the approach of the SRA is abdicate responsibility for this and to suggest Mr Cantor should sue Mr Lewis or complain to the Legal Ombudsman.
The SRA is right in that Mr Lewis did decide there was a conflict between himself and Mr Cantor in May 2023. But: the SRA seems unable to recognise the evidence that the conflict arose long before then, and Mr Lewis failed to act in Mr Cantor’s best interests and acted in Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s interests. Two specific examples are: (a) Mr Lewis insisting from November 2021 onwards that Mr Cantor would only settle if I paid Mr Lewis’ and Patron Law’s fees; and (b) Mr Lewis not advising Mr Cantor to give undertakings not to further publish the screenshot to protect Mr Cantor’s position. The SRA’s decision makes no sense because Mr Lewis’ identification of a conflict in May 2023 does not account for his conduct before then; and, of course, Mr Lewis continued to advise and encourage Mr Cantor after May 2023.
Again, the superficiality of the SRA’s investigations and decisions are worrying. I am trying not to be rude, but how is it that legally qualified and highly paid staff at the SRA seem to be unable to conduct a proper investigation, obtain and consider relevant evidence, and reach satisfactory conclusions. And, to make the obvious point, this was a case where one of the defendants tragically died by suicide during the litigation and Mr Cantor will lose the home he and his family live in. It is, on the face of it, a case which might seem to justify a thorough investigation into Mr Lewis and Patron Law?
There’ll be another post on 7 March 2025. The next post will contain what are perhaps the most serious allegations against Mr Lewis.