Dear Mr Davey
Thank you for the commiseration implicit in your letter of the 10.11.88, regarding the findings of the Disciplinary Committee relating to the role of Messrs Tughan & Company in the act of dispossessing my mentally handicapped brother of his inheritance.
However, I must point out that pertinent questions in my letter of the 5.11.88 have been left unanswered, viz. what constitutes the difficulty in applying the test of "disgraceful and dishonourable" behaviour to the firm of Messrs Tughan & Company, of which Mr H Wright was an employee and, as such, their responsibility as far as competent supervision was concerned? Why has there to be different degrees of supervision? Supervision by any legal firm of repute must be absolute and not subject to dilution because of the varying degrees of qualifications or experience of any employees. What were "all the circumstances"? This phrase is too indeterminate to be acceptable.
Are Tughan & Company not in breach of Section 5 Criminal Law Act 1967?
Copies of all correspondence, yours and mine, will be sent to Rt. Hon. John Taylor MP whose timely intervention in this case expedited your hasty reply of the 3.11.88.
Eileen Wright (Mrs)
P.S. Would you please refer this letter to the Disciplinary Committee in view of the fact that your Society can take no further action in this matter.