Independent solicitor accountability review

Kesar & Co Solicitors: Missed Deadlines. Ignored Complaints. Serious Questions About Competence.

Kesar & Co has a published history of High Court findings concerning negligent and unreasonable litigation conduct, disciplinary sanctions involving director Mladen Kesar, and a separate Legal Ombudsman finding of poor service.

More recent correspondence raises further serious concerns about case handling by Mariah Evans-Marshall, repeated requests to pursue discrimination, later limitation deadlines, unanswered formal complaints and outstanding client records.

Would I recommend Kesar & Co Solicitors?

No.

My opinion is based on the published judgments, disciplinary record and documented experience of the firm's handling of a later legal matter.

Early settlement offer - 6 November 2026

£237,890.94

The early settlement offer was £237,890.94 plus fully funded physical recovery and return of all original items, without any cap on recovery costs or expense to the client.

Expiry: Friday 6 November 2026 at 23:59 GMT.

Staff and management

1. The individuals involved

Mladen Kesar

Director and solicitor.

Kesar & Co's historical litigation conduct was examined by the High Court, resulting in findings of negligent and unreasonable conduct and an order for wasted costs.

Mladen Kesar was separately sanctioned by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for accounting and regulatory breaches.

In the later client matter, urgent correspondence was directed to him. A read receipt confirmed that an urgent message had been opened.

The client received no satisfactory substantive resolution of the outstanding complaints by 6 November 2026.

Mariah Evans-Marshall

Replacement caseworker, identified as a solicitor apprentice.

Mariah took over a time-sensitive legal matter in September 2026.

The firm had already received repeated discrimination instructions, supporting evidence and warnings about urgent issues.

Later ordinary limitation deadlines passed without the client receiving effective warnings from Mariah or evidence of protective proceedings.

Mariah failed to substantively address the formal complaint submitted on 13 October 2026.

A further formal complaint was submitted on 21 October.

Mariah subsequently promised a substantive response by 29 October 2026. That response was not received.

These recorded complaint-handling events are distinct from whether a court would find personal professional negligence.

Nicole Sinodinos

Original caseworker.

Nicole initially handled safeguarding, public-law and discrimination issues.

She supplied Equality Act advice and acknowledged that separate discrimination proceedings might be needed.

Nicole did warn about an earlier July judicial-review limitation issue. That warning is acknowledged.

She subsequently stated that she was being reassigned for administrative reasons and had prepared a detailed handover note.

The client expressly warned that the transfer must not delay urgent work.

The firm's responsibility

A firm must properly manage and supervise its legal work, including continuity when a caseworker changes.

The central question is whether the firm gave competent advice, acted on the agreed instructions and protected the client's legal position.