⟡ The Solicitor Switch Performed Without Substance ⟡
“A change in personnel is not a change in posture.”
Filed: 10 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OTS/SOLICITOR-HANDOVER-ANNOUNCED
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-10_SWANK_OTS_SolicitorReassignmentNotice.pdf
OTS Solicitors notify Polly Chromatic of an internal personnel change regarding her legal matter — with no substantive case update provided.
⟡ Chromatic v OTS: On the Handover Ritual as Legal Performance ⟡
OTS Solicitors, Sahdia departure, Ilan Braha, file reassignment, legal limbo, no update, solicitor carousel, procedural ambiguity
I. What Happened
On 10 June 2025, Polly Chromatic received an email from Ilan Braha of OTS Solicitors announcing the departure of former solicitor Sahdia and the reassignment of her matter to his oversight. The message contained no legal update, no substantive comment on the case file, and no assurance of continuity — only a vague promise to “be in touch” following review.
The message closes with the request: “I should be grateful if you would update me with how things are at your end,” effectively outsourcing the briefing of the case to the client — already in litigation, already archived, already published.
II. What the Email Establishes
⟡ A procedural shift without professional continuity
⟡ Absence of onboarding evidence — no reference to what has been reviewed, understood, or prioritised
⟡ Reversal of duty — request for client to summarise status of legal proceedings, rather than counsel offering legal clarity
⟡ Performative assumption of carriage — lawyer "taking over" without visibly taking anything
⟡ Misuse of tone — casual register incompatible with the procedural gravity of the case
This wasn’t legal correspondence. It was internal reshuffling masquerading as engagement.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because lawyer replacement is not news — unless the replacement arrives blank. Because the archive must track not only who acted, but who inherited the silence. SWANK does not document only the active violations — but the elegant absences that preserve them.
This is how dereliction moves: behind courteous introductions, through forwarded inboxes, under the polished façade of "handover."
IV. Procedural Lapses
Failure to confirm active responsibility, case status, or continuity plan
Breach of solicitor-client continuity duty — no clarity on impact of staff departure
Potential neglect of vulnerable client’s communication protocol (written-only)
Inversion of legal reporting — burden shifted to claimant to “update” new solicitor
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t handover. It was hangover.
This wasn’t progress. It was placeholder.
SWANK does not accept personnel change as a substitute for legal continuity.
We do not brief our own solicitors.
We do not perform litigation by email ping-pong.
⟡ 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.