42 There appears to have been no further contact between either of R and U and the practitioner until November 2003. Earlier, on 12 May 2003, Mr Thorpe's solicitors had written to the practitioner informing him that unless he took steps to progress the action within 14 days, they would apply to strike the action out for want of prosecution. Eventually, on 25 November 2003, Mr Thorpe's solicitors wrote to the practitioner, enclosing an application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The application was returnable on 2 December 2003. On the same day, the practitioner instructed one of his employees, Mr Mitchell Orman, to write to R and U seeking instructions. He did so and, on about 28 November 2003, Mr Orman and the practitioner met with R. R informed them that he had no idea what was happening. A file note prepared by Mr Orman in respect of the meeting records that the practitioner's firm had ceased to act for R on 10 August 2000 and that he owed $3500 in fees. However, on 2 December 2003, a notice of change of solicitor was filed. This revealed that the partnership name had altered from Eley Palmer Archer to Eley Palmer and that the latter firm was now representing the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this, on the following day Mr Orman wrote to R and U confirming that Eley Palmer did not act for them. He sought payment of the outstanding costs. There were further communications between Orman and R. Eventually, Eley Palmer applied to have itself removed from the record as the solicitors for R and U.