⟡ “All Representation Terminated — Because Silence Was The Final Insult” ⟡
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILY/LEGAL-REVOCATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_TERMINATION_OF_REPRESENTATION_AND_REVOCATION_OF_AUTHORITY.pdf
Formal termination notice revoking all authority from legal representative due to procedural negligence and disregard of disability accommodations.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) issued formal written notice to Alan Mullem of MBMC Crawford Street, revoking all authority to act on her behalf. This followed the solicitor’s failure to inform her of an Interim Care Order hearing concerning her children, failure to provide any documentation before or after the event, and repeated disregard for her explicit instructions and communication access requirements. The notification was disseminated simultaneously to the Family Court, the Local Authority, and relevant governance bodies.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Systematic procedural breaches, including:
Failure to notify a client of critical hearings.
Withholding of legal documents essential to informed consent.
Ignoring disability accommodations and access needs.
Demonstrable human impact through deprivation of participation in life-altering proceedings.
Repeated erosion of trust in professional duty of care.
A paradigmatic illustration of how institutional inertia compounds vulnerability.
This was not merely an oversight — it was the quiet consolidation of power in the absence of scrutiny.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is exactly how structural exclusion metastasises: behind closed doors, in the void between what should happen and what is conveniently omitted.
Because no person should discover a care order after the fact.
Because legal representation is not a favour — it is a statutory function.
Because history shows that silence about these failings becomes complicity.
And because SWANK will not dignify negligence with quietude.
IV. Violations
Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2019:
Principle 4: Act in the best interests of each client.
Principle 5: Provide a proper standard of service.
Principle 7: Act in the client’s best interests and maintain trust.
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20–21:
Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not representation.
It was abdication.
⟡ This wasn’t safeguarding. It was erasure. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the trivialisation of procedural rights.
We will document every failure. Every time.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence.
Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.