News

The full Lord Harley SDT judgment has been published

By on
261

Legal Cheek gets two mentions

harleypopart

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision that saw eccentric ‘Harry Potter’ lawyer Lord Harley struck off the roll has been published in full.

The 56-page document (embedded below) details why Lord Harley, real name Alan Blacker, was booted out of the profession and slammed with an £86,000 costs order for — among other things — making statements about his academic qualifications that were “inaccurate and misleading”.

Harley’s legendary LinkedIn page, which is still live, proved to be a real talking point for the tribunal. On his online profile, it’s claimed Harley holds a number of colourful job titles including ‘Transactional Analysis Psychoanalytical Psychologist’ and ‘Fellow’ of the Zoological Society of London. It also claims he has degrees from Trinity College, Manchester Met, Leeds Beckett, Kaplan Altior and a number of foreign universities, including Stanford.

It may seem farfetched, but Harley — who did not attend the recent disciplinary hearing — told the SDT via his witness statement:

My academic standing as illustrated in the LinkedIn profile gives the best representation of academic position and I will not waver from.

Other interesting extracts from the respondent’s witness statement include his comment that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) allegations against him are “baseless” and that the applicant had acted in “bad faith”. He also states that one of the witnesses, John Smith, is a “cretin”, and continues:

I first met him through a Rolls-Royce enthusiasts club meeting and have only met in [sic] once, and once was more than sufficient. He was rude, arrogant and offensive and has generally been asked to leave more Rolls-Royce events than I care to imagine.

You can have a full read of the judgment below. Legal Cheek even gets a mention on pages 28 and 50.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

261 Comments

IM Recruiter - we want Lord Harley

46. The Respondent did not attend the hearing…The Respondent’s witness statement did not have a statement of truth in the standard format but stated at paragraph 3 that “Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief” and after paragraph 358 stated “This is my statement, made as a peer of the realm and a knight of the Order of St John, and as an officer of the Supreme Court, true, clear, precise and unequivocal”

48. The Respondent was entirely culpable for his misconduct. The Respondent’s
motivation for the misconduct appeared to be self-aggrandisement. The misconduct
was planned. The Respondent’s actions had harmed the legal profession’s
reputation – he had made it a laughing stock. The harm caused was totally
foreseeable.

Lord Harley clearly needs help. However, I don’t think it is him alone has has made the professional a “laughing stock”.

(9)(2)

anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

If he made no money out of it, it isn’t for the want of trying.

He submitted a bill to the NTT for Wojcicki’s trading standards case of £111,000. His charging rate was £454 an hour.

So don’t say he made nothingv out of it: he wouldn’t show the SRA the books.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

£454 plus VAT per hour for, as Admin so eloquently put it, a “lawyer” with one client to ill to walk to the end of his street.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

A whole two mentions!

(5)(1)

Anonymous

It is actually the same mention twice.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Hang ooooooon!

This comment was edited without stating that there was a breach of the comments policy!

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

That’s better!

(3)(0)

Anonymous

This comment had been removed as it insinuated that a Legal Cheek journalist may have had an embarrassing physical reaction to the joy of seeing Legal Cheek mentioned in the Harley judgment, contrary to Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(29)(2)

Anonymous

The Lord Harley did not like your comment!

(4)(1)

Wendy

You don’t even no him do you there is no need to keep on the slanderous words here but vary on cause he is laughing at all off you.

(0)(13)

Beach Boy

Wendy, Wendy what went wrong
Oh so wrong
We went together for so long

I never thought a guy could cry
‘Til you made it with another guy
Oh Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurt so bad

Wendy, Wendy don’t lose your head
Lose your head
Wendy don’t believe a word he says

I can’t picture you with him
His future looks awful dim
Oh Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurt so bad

Wendy I wouldn’t hurt you like that
No no no
I thought we had our love down pat
Guess I was wrong

The farthest thing from my mind
Was the day that I’d wake up to find
My Wendy
Wendy left me alone

Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy…

(3)(0)

Anonymous

And they went as far as to get a witness statement from the Lord Chief Justice – and nicely set
Out his real titles!

(2)(1)

Armitage Shanks

I thought that he was pathetic and somewhat inadequate (and still do) but he comes over as actually quite nasty.

(24)(0)

Not Amused

The SRA needs to be made to answer for both admitting him and ignoring him.

This is not a heart warming tale of eccentricity. This is a powerful and wealthy regulator failing the public.

(43)(3)

Charlotte Proudman

This is still all about me

(55)(3)

Anonymous

cretins

(5)(1)

Just Anonymous

I think my favourite part of the judgment is when it quotes Blacker’s witness statement, where he justifies his published academic qualifications as follows (pages 27 – 28):

“203. In any event my academic results were not acceptable to me and I had
them verified independently to reassess their integrity. I did this after taking
both LMU and MMU to tribunals funded by the then Disability Rights
Commission and the EHRC as it is now known. I believed and subsequently
proved I had been discriminated against on and for political, religious and
disability grounds.

206. In addition to being a disabled person I’ve had my academic results
independently verified under the personal learning plan by a national charity
which enhances one’s results to give a proper reflection of one’s academic
standing. They do this by a formulaic calculation based on your actual
performance and strong medical evidence and independent examination and
reporting”

Translation: “My results were crap, so I made up new ones!”

(44)(0)

Anonymous

Cringeworthy self-aggrandizement. Even when he’s trying to crawl out of the hole he created for himself he just can’t resist claiming that he sued his Universities (did he actually go to any of them) via the EHRC! His fantasies are lies and his lies are fantasies.

(10)(0)

Not Lord Harley & definitely not his wife

This is so sh*tty of him – disabled people can’t just get their qualifications improved by a charity! His utter drivel might lead some people to believe that this is true and disregard the perfectly valid qualifications of other disabled people! He is such a tosser.

(17)(1)

Anonymous

but, the bodies did publish them, so they are factually correct

(0)(4)

What?

What bodies published what? What is factually correct?

(2)(0)

Liar liar pants on fire

The only body that has published anything is the SRA.

It has published that Blacker is a dishonest liar. He has a pass degree with no honours.

He has no doctorates or masters. And that is based on what other bodies said.

Instead of posting your usual bollox Blacker, just say where you claim to have got your degrees. You won’t because you can’t. You have made them up.

You are too thick for doctorates, masters and honours.

Alan “basic pass degree” Blacker.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

A lie is a lie duckweed even if you persuade somebody if isn’t.

(1)(0)

What?

I assume “duckweed” is a reference to the Twinsectra test, as developed by the Tribunal in its judgment.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

The amount of time and effort some Legal Cheek people put into attacking this guy is quite shocking. The nasty and offensive comments made are tantamount to bullying and harassment. There seems to be a total lack of compassion for him. This twisted nastiness is far more likely to bring the profession into disrepute than anything he did.

(6)(61)

Anonymous

Yeah, because we shouldn’t be allowed to criticise a man who fraudulently mislead clients…

Sorry if valid criticism hurts your feelings.

(33)(1)

Eh??

Bullying and harassment? They’re rightfully lambasting an overly narcissistic snake-oil merchant. This man has tainted every case he’s ever run, and has argued to the last with the SRA for…what exactly? He’s dragged the profession through the mud.

(24)(1)

Anonymous

A man is in prison because of you and your fantasies Alan.
GTFO.

(16)(1)

Anonymous

Frankly, the judgment speaks for itself.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Yes – this sort of weird personally motivated rant. Very strange.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It is not harassment. I haven’t called him a cretin yet, but whilst we’re on the subject, Dr. Blacker, what is your take on the throwing of stones into glass houses?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

HHJ Lynch QC would have a word to describe him.

(24)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Your boba fides have been adjusted Alan.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Yay Lawbytes are here!

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Love them fellas

(8)(0)

Anonymous

And fellettes 🙂

(1)(0)

Anonymous

And fellates

Anonymous

What about my Boba Fetts?

(0)(0)

Diogenes

So this is how the costs racked up so dramatically – Mr Blacker’s wilful obstruction and obfuscation.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Can someone please stick the link to the judgement on his LinkedIn somehow? I’d like to see him try and explain it away in front of all his avid followers.

(9)(1)

Anonymous

Only just realised he calls himself two names as well as all his qualifications, Dr Blacker and Lord Harley

(4)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Not to mention his previous names of the Earl of Carrick and the Earl of Dublin.

(7)(0)

I'm only here to see Alan

Walt walt walt

(5)(0)

Anonymous

If he used his Papa’s birth surname he would be Alan Clough.

(7)(0)

Vapido

What is striking about the judgment is that there was no allegation that Lord Harley misled the SRA. He gets admitted, obtains various waivers and is granted higher rights of audience, yet at no point does the SRA say “we gave him those things because we were misled”.

Lots of questions for the SRA to answer – but it won’t want to.

(17)(0)

Anonymous

What do you have to do to get higher rights of audience as a solicitor? A course or exam or other firm of assessment?

Someone please enlighten me.

Did AB actually pass that stage or did he obtain some forms of concession?

(0)(0)

The Waiver King

I got a waiver.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Alan Blacker, the human waiver

(0)(0)

Hurrah for Lawbytes

Waiving as he sinks.

Pro bobo

Paragraph 39.5 says he misled he SRA:

“”The Applicant’s case was that the Respondent had claimed in various documents that he held an “LLB (D Hons)” in Law. In the paper document exhibited to Mr Smith’s statement, it stated that the Respondent’s “Professional Qualifications” included “LL.B. (Double Honours) Law Oldham Business University College” with an explanatory footnote “A franchised degree from Huddersfield through Oldham Business Management School”. The same claim appeared in a document that was submitted by the Respondent to the SRA on 24 October 2010 in respect of a waiver application.”

How embarrassing for the regulator.

(9)(0)

Diogenes

“212. My doctorate was awarded as a D.Litt which is superior to DPhil but in order to have it recognised in the UK I’ve had to have it downgraded in accordance with the appropriate academic rules.”

Could I trouble you for the title of your doctoral thesis, Alan? I’d be very interested in reading it. Only it doesn’t show up in any union catalogue anywhere.

(18)(0)

Vapido

To recap:

1. The regulator admits a buffoon and gives him higher rights of audience, as a result of which he appears at a Crown Court trial and loses a client to five years in jail.

2. The regulator then incurs almost £100,000 of costs in getting him struck off.

3. The regulator stands no chance of recovering those costs, which fall on the profession.

4. The SDT congratulates the regulator on its handling of a “difficult case”.

(21)(1)

Quo Vadis

Exactly. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Alan Blacker was only exposed through his wanton behaviour in the Wojcicki trial. What if he hadn’t worn those ribbons on his gown? How long would he have stayed undetected? Are there other Alan Blackers out there, just waiting to be exposed?

(11)(0)

Be careful what you write.

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(9)(2)

Anonymous

This seems about as realistic a story as his CV.

(2)(0)

anonymous

I honestly believe this is a total one – off.
I haven’t ever come across anything like it. Surprised blackers opponents didn’t shop him / report him over what was blatant lies. Open goal. Especially as he had such a bad attitude.

(4)(0)

Bob Probo

They did report him. He was being reported from 2012 onwards. That’s the most alarming thing about this.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Is he the same Person as Artoo from Rof?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

No, he’s not Artoo from RoF, he is Arsehole from Jaflas.

(8)(0)

Wendy

Takes one to no one, don’t y think? Huh?

(0)(5)

Wendy's House

What a witty rejoinder – good work, Alan!

(1)(0)

Bob Probo

As the judgment demonstrates, he is anyone he chooses to be.

(2)(0)

Comments are closed.