Makin and AB/X.
A high-profile solicitor has failed to keep his bad behaviour low-profile, losing his court bid to maintain his anonymity.
Robin Makin, who runs criminal defence firm Liverpool Legal, became a prominent figure in the legal community after acting for the father of James Bulger and serial killer Ian Brady.
He also spent four years trying to prevent himself being unmasked as AB/X, the lawyer who transformed into an overcharging shoutyman during a decade-long case he brought against the Ministry of Justice.
Makin successfully sued the MoJ for failing to comply with a data protection subject access request and was granted anonymity to protect his privacy rights.
But his conduct during the case was sufficiently questionable that in July the High Court decided to revoke his anonymity in the public interest, and after his application to the Court of Appeal was rejected, he has been named.
At a hearing in May 2019 Makin swore and shouted at the MoJ’s counsel and a solicitor from the Government Legal Department before twice walking out and coming back in, causing the hearing to be abandoned.
In behaviour described by Costs Judge James as “not only improper but also calculated”, Makin objected at that hearing to the judge being told of a directly relevant authority which was unhelpful to his case “in breach of his duty to assist the court”.
He also persistently accused Judge James of bias despite the High Court assessing his allegations as totally without merit, and made an application for an injunction without mentioning that another judge had already dismissed it as also being “entirely without merit”.
Much of the friction revolved around Makin’s fight to get paid, and his frustration at the court’s conclusion that he had charged hourly rates “many times the reasonable and proper amount”.
His own hourly rate was £779.48, while a “particularly bad example” saw him charging rates for an unqualified fee earner “well in excess” of those appropriate to an 8PQE solicitor.
Judge James described the amount Makin was claiming for drafting and checking his bill as “an overcharge to the public purse so egregious that in its own right it is both unreasonable and improper”.
His total costs came to £936,875, but they were assessed downwards to approximately £55,000, and were described by the judge as so “unreasonable and improper” that “no reasonable solicitor and officer of the court could properly have signed the certificate”.
In a judgment refusing permission to appeal, Lord Justice Coulson said “In my view, there is no basis for an appeal. Like so many previous applications made by AB/X in the course of these proceedings, this application is totally without merit”
“These proceedings, and AB/X’s attempts to prolong them, have used up a disproportionate amount of court resources, time and costs. It is important that they are now brought to a speedy end. The removal of the cloak of anonymity will be one step in that process”, he said.
Makin did not respond to a request for comment.
A GLD spokesperson said, "We are reviewing the decision of Lord Justice Coulson and considering next steps".
Comments
32
1
Hopefully the SRA have a few spare minutes to spend considering this egregious attempt to steal from the public purse. Could some kind of sanction be appropriate they might even ask themselves?
Won't hold my breath...
43
2
Both himself and his father are/were an utter disgrace.
28
1
A saying involving apples and trees springs to mind
22
2
Eh? His da was a hero, no?
20
2
@Anonymous 15 December 23 08:51
He’s not a junior lawyer / trainee, so unlikely they’ll get involved.
20
2
On a side note has anyone else seen the whitewash that is Rex Mankind Wikipedia page?
22
2
Is that the antique collecting kid off Wogan, all grown up?
19
1
Nearly £1m of legal fees, reduced down to £55k!
19
2
Clearly no one has background knowledge on the original case from 2003/2004 regarding his wife’s suicide - he found her in the garage hanging. Internal MoJ documents made malicious comments regarding it because being Jewish they didn’t want a full post mortem and inappropriate comments where made hence why he sued them and won! It was brought up again in 2014 when they refused to destroy all original documents. He didn’t want his kids to read it because it was harmful to them as a family - the kids were only 2 and 5 when she died. Hence Robin’s outburst at having to go over everything again. I also believe Robin has Asperger’s so I can only imagine his frustration at having to go through everything again. The inflated wages could be monies lost as he had to be in London when he’s always in Liverpool. Or he has charged them a London rate. I’m sure he isn’t the only solicitor doing this.
Robin isn’t a criminal defence lawyer nor does his firm practice criminal law. They haven’t since his father died in 2017 and the relaunch in 2022.
23
1
"Robin has Asperger’s so I can only imagine his frustration at having to go through everything again."
Can he do the job or can't he?
He was happy to stand up in court and be the advocate, so it's a bit rum to play the victim card after the fact if he should instead have picked someone with a more suitable skillset.
If you don't like poring fastidiously over fine detail to the point that most mortals would have died of boredom, then law ain't the game for you.
15
2
“Can he do the job or can't he? He was happy to stand up in court and be the advocate, so it's a bit rum to play the victim card after the fact if he should instead have picked someone with a more suitable skillset. If you don't like poring fastidiously over fine detail to the point that most mortals would have died of boredom, then law ain't the game for you.”
I would assume that given he was admitted to the bar in 1986 and the history of his father in court he is more than capable of doing the job! He started working there at 16. The issue with this particular case lies herein the fact that false and malicious accusations were made about some involvement in his wife’s death or that she killed herself to get away from him. Documents and communications not helpful when grieving a loved one whom you have found hanging in your garage. Completely unjust and proven to be malicious. He isn’t playing any victim card, it just explains why he sought the original anonymity. The original case goes back to 2004 and if I remember correctly, people weren’t getting their children the MMR vaccine because of autism - there was and still is a stigma regarding it because of some interpersonal skills. I was told by a member of the Jewish community in Liverpool that getting a conversation out of him was like trying to get blood out of a stone. Yet I’ve always found him okay and pleasant.
At the end of the day we are all human - he isn’t a machine - I’d expect he didn’t think he would have that outburst - he also doesn’t suffer fools gladly - but on the knowledge and history of the case he may be excused.
Context would be great too because given his surroundings something like “bloody hell” would be considered swearing but laughed off publicly by most yet these headlines make out he’s told the other council “f**k off” which might also win over some support from those anti establishment (like his father).
16
1
"Internal MoJ documents made malicious comments regarding it because being Jewish they didn’t want a full post mortem and inappropriate comments where made hence why he sued them and won! It was brought up again in 2014 when they refused to destroy all original documents. He didn’t want his kids to read it because it was harmful to them as a family - the kids were only 2 and 5 when she died. Hence Robin’s outburst at having to go over everything again"
I usually take a dim view of the Makins, but...I did not know that.
Any further info/proof on this?
7
2
How rude of the Moj. How's the poor fellow to get a decent watch at those rates?
9
1
"I would assume that given he was admitted to the bar in 1986 and the history of his father in court he is more than capable of doing the job!" ... and yet here we are, in 2023, shouting and swearing at opposing counsel, then getting hauled over the coals for trying to sting the Exchequer for a million quid (reduced down to circa £50k). But hey, 1986 call, and nobody old can be rubbish, right?