PENNINGTONS MANCHES COOPER LLP

I contacted Penningtons because the medical accidents charity had told me they could help under the rule where you can talk to a solicitor for 20 minutes for free

I contacted Penningtons and made it clearly from the beginning that I only wanted advice about bringing the case against a doctor myself because I believed it was something they would not be interested in. I did emphasize this strongly.

They asked me to send information regarding what it was about. I provided this information and was told they would call me back. This went on for over 2weeks where they contested they would ring me back but never did
I eventually got an email from them saying they could not take my case on, which I had never asked them to and they could not provide free advice. They could have told me this from the beginning. A completely dishonest rapacious company who was only interested in finding out if there was something of value for themselves and not having the honesty from the beginning to simply say no we cannot give free advice

Overpriced, average lawyers honestly we went with them önce and they charged a fortune especially the extras, 2nd time we went with someone else and paid a 1/4 for a more engaged lawyer.

Go elsewhere unless your a multi millionaire

We had to engage this company as they are acting on behalf of Aviva, the freeholder of our development and the only insurer willing to cover it due to the cladding issues.

Since 2021, we have followed all required steps and have now received approval from the BSA. However, Penningtons have been causing delays by failing to respond in a timely manner since July 2025.

All we need is for them to act swiftly and responsibly so that the CDA can be signed and nearly 420 flats can be released from ongoing fire safety restrictions.

I have been dealing with Lyndsey Skibinski, John Kyriacou and Senior Paralegal Kinnari Fowler at Penningtons, London in relation to a clinical negligence claim, regarding vaginal mesh.
They were professional from the outset, everything was explained at every stage, and I felt listened to and supported.
Communication was clear and timely, and I was kept fully informed at each stage of the process, and was even kept updated when we were lacking in updates from the defendant.
They were thoughtful and empathetic in what was a stressful and upsetting case.
My case has come to a successful conclusion, and I would have no hesitation in recommending Lyndsey and John at Penningtons.

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.