A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Cordell & Co (PC-118): On the Etiquette of Professional Neglect


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – CORDELL & CO SOLICITORS (SRA) ⟡

Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SRA/CORDELL-CO-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-22_Core_PC-118_SRA_CordellCoSolicitorsFormalComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding the professional negligence and ethical failures of Cordell & Co Solicitors, who failed to act on urgent disability and housing-disrepair claims despite documented evidence of harm, discrimination, and legal breach. The complaint marks the first SWANK Legal Division entry concerning solicitor malpractice within the institutional retaliation sequence.

I. What Happened

On 22 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against Cordell & Co Solicitors.

The complaint cited:
• Failure to act on a medically urgent housing-disrepair case despite legal documentation of physical harm and environmental hazard.
• Improper deflection of responsibility to a property manager, without legal intervention, safeguarding notice, or protective action.
• Total abandonment of a disabled client during active exposure to sewage gas and environmental toxicity.

The firm’s conduct constituted professional inertia in the face of medical evidence — an aesthetic of indifference disguised as procedure.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Cordell & Co violated their professional duty to act competently, diligently, and with due care for a medically vulnerable client.
• That they ignored documented risk, thereby breaching the Solicitors Code of Conduct and principles of equality and integrity.
• That their passivity directly endangered the complainant and her children, creating measurable harm.
• That silence, when billable, becomes misconduct.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To formalise solicitor negligence as part of the institutional retaliation chronology.
• To prove that inaction within a professional context can constitute participation in harm.
• To preserve evidence of systemic failure in legal representation for disabled clients.
• Because law without empathy is malpractice — and apathy, once written, is evidence.

IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework

Professional Standards (Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct):
• Principle 1 – Uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
• Principle 2 – Act with integrity.
• Principle 4 – Act in the best interests of each client.
• Principle 5 – Provide a proper standard of service.
• Principle 6 – Encourage equality, diversity, and inclusion.

Statutory Context:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss.15, 19, 20 (failure to accommodate disability).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 6, 8, 14 (fair process, family life, and discrimination).
• Solicitors Act 1974 – regulatory obligations of professional competence.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Negligence, when written in polite English, is still negligence.”

SWANK London Ltd. affirms that Cordell & Co Solicitors converted their ethical obligation into decorative correspondence — a gesture of legal representation without the substance of law.
Their inaction exemplifies a national pattern: procedural professionalism as performance, empathy outsourced to silence.

This complaint therefore serves as both regulatory trigger and archival artefact — proof that indifference can, and must, be litigated.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because ethics deserve enforcement.
And neglect deserves literature.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.