Serious reservations about judgment, proportionality, and accuracy
This review reflects my personal experience of dealing with the opposing legal team at Penningtons Manches Cooper in a contentious trusts matter. I communicated directly with Ruth Giddings (Associate), Sarah Arnold (Senior Associate), and, to the best of my understanding, Sarah Lee (Partner). Everything that follows is based solely on my documented and verbal interactions with them and represents my sincerely held opinions.
My dealings with Sarah Arnold, who acted as the main point of contact, raised sustained concerns about professional judgment from the outset. The tone I experienced felt unusually forceful for a civil dispute, and this became a consistent pattern rather than an isolated instance. Over time, I also came to experience her handling of matters as consistently unhelpful and lacking the level of professionalism I would reasonably expect from someone in a senior position.
I recall Ms Arnold describing herself in terms suggesting she was “more ferocious than any barrister” I would meet. As she is, to my understanding, a solicitor rather than a barrister, the comment stood out, and the way it was expressed further contributed to my concerns about tone and proportionality.
I also experienced issues with accuracy. Several statements made earlier in the case did not align with later documentation, which, in my opinion, fell below the standard of care I would expect in a sensitive family-related dispute. These inconsistencies reinforced my impression that the overall handling did not meet the level of professionalism I would have anticipated from a senior practitioner.
In one early conversation, the way potential consequences were described left me feeling as though criminal implications were being emphasised, despite this being a civil matter in which no criminal issues were ever applicable. I found this particularly unsettling and disproportionate.
Strategically, I experienced the approach as unnecessarily escalatory, increasing emotional and financial strain without materially progressing the key issues. This was especially evident based on the evidence I later presented in a second mediation, which I personally experienced as both costly and, in my view, avoidable.
Attempts on my part to communicate with a close family member through what I understood to be appropriate channels did not reach them as intended. Whatever the procedural explanation, the human impact was considerable and I saw little indication that it was meaningfully taken into account.
Mediation reflected similar concerns. After an extensive negotiation, the late introduction of new terms disrupted what had been intended as a constructive process. In my view, this reflected poor strategic judgment and contributed directly to the breakdown of the mediation.
Although I also communicated at points with Ruth Giddings and Sarah Lee, it was my dealings with Sarah Arnold that most influenced my concerns. Throughout the matter, I repeatedly experienced her approach as adversarial, unhelpful, and lacking the balance and professionalism I would expect from a senior solicitor handling sensitive family issues.
Based solely on my experience, I was left with serious reservations about judgment, proportionality, and accuracy. These concerns are based entirely on my interactions and are not intended to suggest any broader conclusions.
This review is an accurate and sincerely held account of my personal experience.