A solicitor responsible for the drafting of a client’s will in which provisions were made for a £100 million estate, has been criticised and dubbed as “reckless” and “dishonest” by Mr Justice Michael Green.
In the case of Reeves v Drew & Ors the judge found that solicitor Daniel Curnock had given untruthful evidence during the trial, and could face serious consequences.
The case involved a claim from Louise Reeves who was seeking to uphold the 2014 will of her father, property dealer Kevin Reeves who died three years ago. The will had been prepared by Curnock.
In the 2014 will Louise Reeves received 80% of the estate, with her half-sister Lisa Murray receiving the other 20%. But family members have since opposed probate being granted on the grounds that the 2014 will had been the result of undue influence, given that a prior will prepared in 2012 had split the estate more equally across family members.
The judge commented that Curnock’s preparation of the 2014 will was strange, and that despite his client’s wealth, Curnock argued that because Mr Reeves had negotiated a fixed fee of £140 plus VAT, he would not be able to provide a first class service. Curnock compared the quality of service he provided to his client to “the quality of clothes at Primark”.
In preparing the will the judge noted the extraordinary practice that Curnock had amended the 2012 will with annotations and deletions and could not explain his reasons for doing so.
The judge also referred to Curnock’s behaviour as a witness, stating that he insisted on reading every document in great depth, in an effort to buy time, and avoided answering questions by asking counter-questions to counsel.
It was also noted that the relationship between Louise Reeves and Curnock was greater and more familiar than first disclosed and that a number of text messages had been exchanged between the two.
The judge stated that Curnock was:
“a most unsatisfactory witness whose evidence cannot be tested by reference to his own attendance notes because those attendance notes are themselves under challenge.”
“It is actually quite distressing to say that I cannot safely rely on the evidence from an officer of the court but I do not think he was giving truthful evidence about how he took instructions, prepared the 2014 will and the relationship between him and the claimant,” added Mr Justice Michael Green.
It was concluded that the 2012 will was still valid and that claimant had not proved that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will.
