Gail Hadfield-Grainger of Hadfield Grainger & McNally ‘passing off’ as a Lawyer / Solicitor

Gail Hadfield Grainger, the ex-partner of Anthony Grainger (who was shot dead by GMP), has taken it upon herself to incorrectly promote herself as a Lawyer.

Gail went on to study law after Anthony’s death and got herself a law degree (with second-class honours), but unlike legal professionals, she did not pursue or take the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE).

In the UK, a lawyer is (according to the Cambridge English Dictionary).

someone whose job is to give advice to people about the law and speak for them in court
(My emphasis)

The only people legally qualified to speak for a client in court are Solicitors and Barristers and referred to as rights of audience   No one else has a right to represent another person in court unless they are legally qualified (or have express permission from the court)

Holding a law degree is not a qualification for the purpose of providing legal representation, in the same way that a Biology degree does not give you a license to practice as a doctor!

Gail Hadfield-Grainger has not taken or passed the SQE and therefore is not a lawyer, she is a ‘legal advisor’ (at best).  She has knowledge that she can give to any person so long as it is not claimed to be licensed (i.e. from a lawyer)  This is no different to any other person giving unqualified legal advice.

What makes it worse is that Gail happily (and illegally) divulges clients’ personal information without permission! (see further down)

On checking with the University of Law, they say

A lawyer and a solicitor are the same terms. A lawyer is a term that describes anyone who is licensed and can provide legal advice or represent clients in court. It includes solicitors, barristers and chartered legal executives. Both terms, lawyers and solicitors, are used interchangeably in the UK but essentially mean the same thing.

(My emphasis)

Both the University of Law and the English dictionary describe a Lawyer as a licensed provider of legal advice.  In fact, the University of Law makes it clear that a Lawyer is a solicitor, the phrase is the same!

In effect, Gail Hadfield Grainger is knowingly passing off as a Solicitor when she is nothing more than a self-professed legal advisor.

In a recent BBC Radio show, Gail Hadfield-Grainger refers to herself as ‘A LAWYER’, she says;

Being a Lawyer, I have seen too many lives lost due to prolonged restraint and excessive force being used by the police and mental health nurses.

Anyone with any legal knowledge would know they are not a lawyer unless qualified.  She is a legal advisor, nothing more.  It is believed she is doing this simply to try to pass off as a solicitor to her clients to gain work.

In June 2022, we received a letter from Gail Hadfield Grainger where she says;

We clearly state on our website that you have visited on several occasions that we are an UNREGULATED PRACTICE; we are NOT solicitors and therefore do not need to be governed by the SRA.

Gail made it clear she is not regulated by any professional body, but she falls short of admitting she is nothing more than a self-professed legal advisor, which is all she is. She points out that she is not governed by the SRA,  the body put in place to protect the public from rogue legal professionals.  If she was regulated, she would have been shut down long ago.

Sadly, some of Gail Hadfield Grainger’s clients have come to us with evidence of their poor experiences.

One of the ex-clients of Gail Hadfield-Grainger approached us, her name is Sandra.  Sandra tells us she was led to believe that Gail Hadfield Grainger had the necessary qualifications to legally represent her and that Sandra handed over £750.

In a recorded phone call below, Sandra had a complaint meeting with Gail Hadfield-Grainger and Mags McNally over how they handled her case.

In a summary of the case, Sandra sought help from Gail Hadfield-Grainger after Sandra was the victim of rape and was later failed by Greater Manchester Police (GMP).

Sandra was querying why Gail had failed to follow up with GMP for the terms of reference relating to her complaint.

Sandra was also asking why Gail had not provided any updates.

You will note from the recording that Gail says that she needed to seek advice from a Solicitor on behalf of Sandra. Gail often refers to the Solicitors as ‘lawyers’.

Sandra asks Gail if she could have just done this herself. Gail says no, you are not a lawyer! (this is false, as Gail has no higher authority to speak to a solicitor or anyone for that matter)

Gail goes on the tell Sandra that she has ‘worked around the clock‘ on the case (and everybody else’s case).   We have doubts that their business is a 24-hour operation, and therefore, this is not entirely correct.

Gail then says

We aren’t SRA-regulated lawyers, and

We don’t have to follow the normal protocols (the protocols that protect the client)

When Sandra tries to dig into what exactly Gail did for the £750 she handed over, Gail answers abruptly and stamps her feet because she was not allowed to speak.

Finally, Mags McNally jumps in, and both Mags and Gail gang up on the client, defending their charges.

Sandra has told us that Hadfield Grainger & McNally did not provide her with any copies of letters they claim to have sent on her behalf.   Letters that would appear never to have been sent.

What is our interest?

The reason why I have an interest in what this ‘legal consultancy’ is up to is that I personally approached Gail for some advice,

I provided pages of sensitive information to her.

Some of Gail’s disgruntled clients approached me and notified me that Gail had passed on some of the sensitive information I have provided to her. Therefore, Gail Hadfield Grainger is not only passing off as a lawyer, but she is also intentionally breaching GDPR Law.

A formal complaint was made to Hadfield Grainger and McNally (their company), and, as supposed professional ‘lawyers’, they simply ignored this.

(Click to enlarge)


No response was received, so a further email was been sent,


(Click to enlarge)


Again, they ignored my emails, so the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is currently reviewing my complaint relating to the data breach.

Oddly, at the bottom of the official Hadfield Grainger website, they say this

Hadfield Grainger & McNally legal consultants can be contacted on the details below. Any queries, thanks or complaints should be directed to the company via email. Wix website contacts general data for analytics and to highlight web traffic, only personal data collected is from people when they input information at their own will.
The occasional marketing email may be sent when emails are input to the website.
Hadfield Grainger & McNally only collects or processes any personal data from people only when they use our services and offer the information to us directly, this data is only used to help advance their case or to be shared (with express authorisation) with solicitors or barristers upon the client’s instructions. Any data stored or shared with Hadfield Grainger & McNally will not be sold or shared with third parties for any reason without direct instructions from the client to do so. Data will be held on the system for 6 years unless express instructions to destroy are given by email.

For more information on data processing, please visit the Information Commissioners Office

(my emphasis)


Notice they provide a means to make a complaint, but they will just ignore you! (That is because, as Gail says, they are not regulated)

They also say personal data will NOT be shared (a lie)

If you need legal advice, be very careful of who you instruct, anyone that lies to get business should never be trusted.

Do not say you have not been warned. See this further audio recording by Gail.


  1. This is outrageous. This is abusive. She has tried (unsuccessfully in our cases) to infiltrate family groups of people who have been bereaved by police violence in order to further her own ‘image’ and to make money from vulnerable people.

    She has tried many many times to extort the experiences of traumatized families to inform her case studies for her degrees.

    Unfortunately many families bereaved by police fell for her crap. Ours did not. We were highly suspicious of her from day one and find her repulsive.

    She has absolutely no idea what it is to be traumatized at the hands of the police. She was with Grainger for weeks romantically.

    She did not lose a family member. The way she highjacked his case from his own family is a disgrace.

    This woman and her so called work appears to be some type of theatrical delusion. I hope she realises how abusive and damaging the way she behaves is. Making money for gain on the back of others suffering is an abomination. How disgusting. Sincerely sorry to all the people on this thread who have been taken advantage of. Hope that you can find some type of resolution going forwards and that you can get your money back.

    Perhaps you could make a joint complaint together. It would be more likely to be taken seriously if you could demonstrate multiple failings.

  2. I’ve been robbed by these too as well.
    Handed over 700 pounds
    Then never heard from the again
    Can anyone help me getting my money back.

  3. Same with my case, she spent more time making excuses than it would have taken to do the actual work. She becomes aggressive when questioned about stuff she says.

    It’s difficult to believe she has any form of law degree. I suspect she submitted work from the Anthony Grainger case as her dissertation which is how she was able to obtain that. No disrespect to Anthony Grainger who I believe was unlawfully killed but that’s no excuse for what this woman is doing.

    In fact I have probably written a dissertation worth on the case she was supposed to be workings on for me. Difference is she got help with hers (even if it wasn’t from the police).

  4. Had a Zoom appointment arranged last year with Hadfied-Grainger and her collegue Mags. That was to discuss a potential action against the police claim/similar for ongoing abuse, harassment and false recordings by Greater Manchester Police (in response to my taking previous action against the police). Quite a distressing time and I approached Hadfield-Grainger’s company in good faith, given the promotion it has for action against the police. Neither Hadfield-Grainger or her colleague turned up to the Zoom (they had originally set the time for the appointment and sent the Zoom link to me for that appointment). I prompted with an email, but neither responded to that prompt email. Felt like they were simply having a laugh at my expense, for whatever reason. Did not feel like a healthy situation whatsover. One thing to miss a meeting through mix-up/human error, but for both of them to miss the meeting, and fail to respond to my email I sent following their failure to show up, seemed to be nothing more than a concerted piss-take. I’ve no idea what the game is with these two women, but they are not professional, not ethical, and they seem to get quite a kick out of what can only be described as some odd form of abuse that they both enjoy. Would not recommend their company to anyone in a similar situation.

  5. Towards the end of 2022, I got in touch with GHG to assist me in a legal matter and as Gail has her own experience, I felt that my consultation would result in a positive outcome.

    On the day of my consultation via Zoom at 12pm, I hadn’t received an email with the link and after waiting 5 minutes, I emailed to let them know and they then sent the link. As Zoom only allows 45 minutes in group calls and because they had other appointments, I didn’t get a chance to say everything because of how complex my case is, but Gail and Mags said 3pm on the same day could be possible and they agreed amongst themselves that they’d do the work for £750. I originally had assumed that legal aid / a no win no fee agreement would cover the costs, but soon realised the work they do is private and wouldn’t help without being paid first…

    The Zoom call cut off as 45 minutes were over and I had shared very sensitive details, so to not be emailed back to even ask me if I was okay and I could call someone if I needed to speak with someone, safeguarding is something GHG knows nothing about which is really hard to accept because Gail has her own experience!?

    When 3pm arrived, I didn’t hear anything and even though I had emailed, I still heard nothing. A few days went by and still didn’t hear anything, so I spoke with someone who I knew was being ‘supported’ by GHG and that’s when I realised my gut instincts were guiding me correctly, so I emailed GHG to tell them that I was backing away and would find someone else.

    I am so glad that I didn’t send them my dropbox link with all of the documents for my case and I am also glad that I hadn’t paid them a penny! In the email, I had asked them to delete the recording of the Zoom call, but I don’t know if this was done or not.

    After a few more days, they replied and stated we could arrange another Zoom call and ‘finish’ our consultation with payment and I declined, so they wished me well in finding someone else.

    A few weeks go by and I receive an email from the website ‘Wix’ and it states no business name or any details about who was emailing me? The message mentioned reviewing my case and I had only spoken with GHG, so I wondered whether they were emailing me to try and get me to speak with them again or had they passed my details onto someone else? I emailed back asking for more information on who was emailing me and then sent a follow-up email and that’s when I received a reply.

    It was GHG and they clearly would have remembered me because we had already spoken, so if they had forgotten, then they clearly aren’t very organised!? I emailed and reminded them that we had spoken already and my decision was the same of not wanting their help and they wished me well while saying they’d take me off their email list and that was the end of that.

    Since then, I have realised of how many others have been let down by GHG also and it’s seriously shocking! To know that they’re not SRA regulated and for that reason can only give legal advice at best, well, I wouldn’t even go to them for legal advice.

    If they were serious about helping others and they’re not about money, then why wouldn’t they take the necessary steps to become regulated? They’re charging people and then setting them back to the point many law firms don’t take on cases if other law firms have messed up because the costs to rectify the mess can sometimes cost even more than actually doing the work – this then prevents people from having representation!!!

    Before contacting GHG, I already knew that I couldn’t trust any law firm completely because I know many are just after money and they simply use people’s cases to further their own careers without actually doing what needs to be done, so after experiencing such treatment from GHG, it’s simply allowed me to know I that I can represent myself better than anyone will ever be able to because I know my case better than anyone.

    To anyone who needs any legal representation now / in the future, please do your research and look up reviews. Ask around and don’t just go with someone who says they will help and then pay them. Be very vigilant, always go with someone who is SRA regulated, don’t ever pay anyone without knowing what they’ll do and won’t do and always trust your gut instincts because they will never lie to you!

    • Hi Shikesh, sorry to hear of your bad experience, you are not alone and many others are now coming forwards based on your strength and willingness to speak out.

      • Thank you so much, Paul and I am so glad to hear that! It can feel impossible to speak out, especially when there is the fear of receiving a civil claim, but when you have experienced such terrible service and they didn’t turn out to be what they say they were, it’s essential to speak out because silence helps no one.

        If anyone who hasn’t already spoken out about your experience, please know that you’re not alone and it’s okay to speak out, especially when you’ve been left to feel so alone and broken!

  6. In January 2022 I went with Gail Hadfield-Grainger. She dated my Pre Action Disclosure Application 15 June 2021 instead of the correct date 15 July 2022 and would not rectify it. She also would not send me the SARs she made on my behalf! My Complaint to her firm was ignored too. I went to her as I was pursuing GMP who were withholding SAR footage and her actions set me back in my pursuit. A copy of the letter can be seen in the media tab on my Twitter page @ImanZayna. Please also see my review on Google for her firm Hadfield Grainger & McNally Legal Consultants.

    • That appears to be a trend in that they claim to have a complaints procedure but do not follow it. All lip service, they are, in my opinion, acting fraudulently. Telling people they are lawyers when they do not, infer to the layperson (who is their target audience) that they are in some way regulated, but they then openly admit they do not have to follow SRA guidance. This gives the impression this is a benefit to their client when it is completely the opposite. They are not regulated but pass off as being in full compliance with compliance and data protection procedures. They are not victim-focused, they are money and reputation focused.

    • MY advice is to make a Subject Access Request to Hadfield Grainger and McNally for all information they hold about you, including the SARs she made on your behalf. The ICO are aware of their conduct, if everyone affected through their DPA failures makes a SAR then the lid will be off the can.

  7. Unfortunately a gangster’s moll will always be a gangster’s moll. She took on Grainger’s surname after his death to give the impression they were married. I think she cashed in massively on his killing for her own self-promotion and narcissistic gain. Very tragic what happened him, but she uses that background to imply she might be a legal expert on police action, but as your story states – no qualification, no lawyer. I wonder if someone did a spot check on her books, how would they add up? She’s a chancer and thrives off attention. From what I’ve heard, she started up her own business as no law firm would take her on. She has a lot in her own past, and that will stand against her. If she is serious about being a lawyer she should just take the exam. She seems to have gained a Masters recently – why put time into that, and try to pass yourself off as a solicitor when you’d be better studying for the SQE. Makes little or no sense.

    • I have doubts she would be taken on by a law firm for the SQE as she has ‘baggage’ that a law firm may not wish to carry. She probably would struggle to be a solicitor even if she wanted to be one, her conduct is questionable and the intentional and malicious GDPR data breaches have tainted her already tainted past.

  8. Gail and Mags have ripped me of too. They are con artists. Picking on vulnerable people to make money. Just ambulance chaser and chancers .Avoid them.
    Great article exposing these too corrupt fraudsters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.