I'm not sure what the Law Society would make of this but a contributor to a blog at http://barkerbootheastwood.blogspot.com/ - known as Double DD - has alleged that Anne Morley and Tracy Kirkland are/were involved with clients.

Comments as follows:

"This firm is disgusting both to clients and staff.Caring firm my backside.The practise manager,Tracy Kirkland, is a complete cow who has no idea what she is doing.Yes they provide personal service-very personal seeing as Tracy Kirkland and a partner, Anne Morely,are both sleeping with clients at the firm-bet they get a discount.This firm only care about making money,money,money to make sure they can continue buying their fancy properties abroad.DON'T BOTHER UNLESS YOU WANT SHODDY SERVICE." - seems like he/she knows them pretty well.

If anyone has any more information or are involved in this and wish to make a statement please leave a comment - anonymous if preferred - but please remember you are responsible for what you type.

If you require the services of Tracy Kirkland and/or Anne Morley they can be contacted at Barker, Booth and Eastwood solicitors in South Shore on 01253 362500. I'm sure either or both could squeeze you in.

Barker, Booth and Eastwood sell themselves as follows:

"Barker Booth & Eastwood is a long established progressive firm of solicitors with a well earned reputation for providing practical legal advice to clients, with authority, imagination and efficiency.

Over the past years Barker Booth & Eastwood has gained respect both inside and outside the profession, achieving esteem as a 'caring' firm offering a personal service to both commercial and private clients. Under each of its specialist departments - Property, Family, Litigation, Commercial and Wills, Inheritance and Probate - Barker Booth & Eastwood is able to provide all the services a client might require from a solicitor"

Many people might disagree with their mission statement above.

For instance there is the case of:

excerpts from the link featuring the House of Lords judgement of 2005:

Hilton (Appellant)

v.

Barker Booth and Eastwood (a firm) (Respondents)

HOUSE OF LORDS
SESSION 2004-05
[2005] UKHL 8
on appeal (available in the public domain) Judge summing up:

"Two of the most important facts known to Barker, Booth and Eastwood, but unknown to Mr Hilton, were that Mr Bromage had been made bankrupt and that while an undischarged bankrupt he had committed numerous offences of dishonesty for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment."

"The notion that one breach of duty by Barker Booth and Eastwood (failure to tell Mr Hilton that they could not act for him and that he should seek independent advice) should exonerate Barker Booth and Eastwood in respect of a subsequent and more serious breach of duty (failure to disclose to Mr Hilton facts which would have saved him from ruin) seems contrary to common sense and justice."

"Mr Hilton suffered a grievous wrong for which he has not been compensated. For the good name of the solicitors' profession his compensation (from Barker, Booth and Eastwood) should be agreed, on a generous scale, without further delay."