Ce-Unpac’d Special : Horsfield Menzies – Turning Disability Into ‘Vexatious Conduct’

Horsfield Menzies markets itself as “The People Focused Law Firm”. Strategic. Bespoke. Boutique. A soft voice in hard workplace moments.

In my case they were legal muscle hired to lean on a disabled litigant in person, then rebrand the predictable fallout as misconduct. Costs threats, procedural pile-on, public hearing pressure, medical disclosure pressure. And when that wasn’t enough, a reach into my GP and a hearing-eve ambush routine before preliminaries.

This is not one harsh letter. This is a pattern. And it sits in open daylight against their own marketing about disability, wellbeing and whistleblowing.

The Brochure Version Vs The Real One

Their homepage is pure HR comfort blanket. “People Focused”. “Outstanding HR legal solutions”. “Strategic precision” for employers when disputes escalate. The tone is warm, measured, modern.

You read it and imagine a firm that understands vulnerability. A firm that knows the Equality Act is not a side quest. A firm that would tread carefully with a disabled person forced to litigate alone.

Then you meet the private version.

In my case, Horsfield Menzies corresponded with me like I was a hostile corporation with an in-house legal team, not a single disabled claimant trying to survive a tribunal process. They did not dial down for a LIP. They dialled up.

Disability As A Seminar Topic, Not A Live Duty

On their site they write about disability the way firms do when they want HR retainers. Menopause as disability. Misconduct linked to disability. Employers urged to spot triggers, get medical input, make adjustments, avoid escalation. They even use the word “triggering” in print.

So this firm knows exactly how disability interacts with stress, conduct and regulation. They know the case law. They sell the training.

In my case they also knew I have medically confirmed emotional regulation problems under pressure. They were told. They still chose tactics that predictably amplify pressure, then treated the dysregulation that followed as if it were a character defect.

That is not ignorance. That is a business decision.

Five Figure Costs Threats Are Not Neutral

One of the earliest moves from their side was the big number.

Not a calm end-of-case warning. A blunt club. Five figures waved at a disabled LIP to make the floor wobble.

The subtext is never subtle. Panic. Fold. Go away. Let the professionals tidy this off the docket without having to win it properly.

They knew my disability. They knew I was unrepresented. They knew pressure wrecks my regulation. The costs sabre still came out early and hard.

People focused firms do not lead with intimidation when the target is the vulnerable party. Unless intimidation is the point. In which case, you’re getting a 2 figure salute.

The Preliminaries Ambush Routine

Then there is timing.

Key preliminary hearings approaching and bang, fresh volleys land. New accusations. New procedural weight. New attempts to reframe the case as conduct theatre rather than disability discrimination.

Not as steady case management. As disruption. As a late shove right before I have to stand in front of a judge alone.

If you are dealing with a disabled LIP and you know stress makes their regulation collapse, dropping a procedural grenade on the eve of preliminaries is not neutral practice. It is a trap. And if it triggers the reaction you expect, that reaction becomes your exhibit.

Reaching Past Me To My GP

They did not just fight me on paper. They reached past me into my surgery.

Horsfield Menzies contacted my GP directly for information to pull into the case. Maybe that is routine in their world. From the other side, it is overreach.

A disabled claimant already telling you pressure breaks his regulation, and now the corporate solicitors are inside the one clinical space that is supposed to be safe.

Put it beside the costs threats and the hearing-eve volleys and you do not get reasonable litigation. You get a pressure strategy that bypasses the person and squeezes the medical flank.

Strategic Precision, Or Turning Symptoms Into ‘Vexatious’

Horsfield Menzies sells employment tribunal support with “clarity, confidence and strategic precision”.

In my case that precision looked like this.

ramp up tone with contempt and big number threats
push for public hearings and medical disclosure
frame disability as footnote
reach into my GP
time escalations to land before preliminaries
wait for dysregulation
then walk into tribunal clutching my disability-driven reactions like trophies and calling them “vexatious conduct”

That is not a mistake. That is a workflow.

Bringing In Wendy Miller KC Was Not Neutral

When Horsfield Menzies decided to upgun, they did not pick a calm employment silk. They went to St Philips Chambers and pulled in Wendy Miller KC.

If that name rings a bell, it is because it should. Miller defended Cummins against me. Now she is being deployed again against the same disabled claimant, on the same disability spine, with the same core medical terrain.

That is not coincidence. That is recycling a proven weapon.

Miller’s public practice is dual-track. Employment and serious crime. Her chambers markets her for serious sexual offences work. Rape. Child abuse. Multiple complainants. Vulnerable witnesses. Acquittals. Your “Serial Litigator” TCAP piece already lays out the named cases and outcomes in full.

So do not insult anyone by pretending her hire was random.

If you bring in a barrister whose normal habitat is the hardest end of the criminal bar, you are signalling posture. You want hostile theatre. You want credibility shredded. You want the vulnerable party treated like a liability to neutralise, not a person to accommodate.

That is why her presence matters here.

The Question They Have Earned

Here is the obvious rude question Horsfield Menzies will not want asked in public.

Did you bring Miller in because she already beat me once for Cummins and you fancied a repeat performance. Same claimant. Same disability. Same pressure points.

Or has she represented one of you before? One of your partners, employees, clients? In her other area of specialism perhaps? You know, not the employment tribunal part.

Either way, it is not a good look.

And there is a darker inference you have put on the table yourselves. You hire the serious sexual offences defender for a disability case and people wonder what kind of comfort zone you are operating in. There are only so many reasons to reach for that blade.

If there is an innocent explanation, you are welcome to give it, loudly and on the record. Until then, the stink sits where you placed it.

People Focused, Unless You Are The Target

So here is the live case study Horsfield Menzies does not want in its HR Matters archive.

people focused in public
escalation focused in private
disability guidance on the website
disability exploited in practice
whistleblowing awareness for LinkedIn
five figure threats for the disabled LIP
calm marketing about tribunal “clarity”
hearing-eve ambushes in real life
and when the pressure produces dysregulation, they slap “vexatious” on it and ask the tribunal to punish the disabled person for reacting to the pressure they applied

I am not rich. I am not insured. I am judgment-proof in the only way that matters here. I will keep writing about what you do, and I will keep it true.

If Horsfield Menzies’ idea of people focused law includes sitting on disabled claimants until they crack, then every disabled person thinking of bringing a claim deserves that warning in advance.

You sell yourselves as experts in vulnerability. In my case, you acted like specialists in exploiting it. As for the Daniel Rubin, keep plugging away as the “other” partner, one day they might put your name above the door.

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project

Sources