MILLIONAIRE wife killer Ian Workman is still protesting his innocence – and even sued his trial lawyers from his prison cell, claiming they let him down.

Workman, who is serving life for murdering his wife Sue, claimed he would probably have been acquitted had his solicitors properly represented him.

But he now faces losing a big chunk of his fortune after a High Court judge condemned his damages claim as a "collateral attack" on the jury's guilty verdict.

Workman, 64, already owes top law firm, Deansgate 123 LLP, more than £145,000 in fees after funding his own defence, London's High Court heard.

And the killer now faces another legal costs bill after Mr Justice William Davis kicked out his professional negligence claim against the firm.

Workman's guilt had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal and his criticisms of the firm were "illusory", ruled the judge, striking out his claim.

The wealthy car dealer, from Turton, was found guilty of murdering his wife at Preston Crown Court in December 2011.

Mr Justice Davis said it was his defence at trial that Sue Workman "died in effect at her own hand" during a domestic argument.

He claimed she came at him with a knife and, when he let go of her wrist, the sudden release of pressure sent the blade plunging into her chest.

He launched an appeal in 2014, pointing to fresh evidence from biomechanics experts, which he said supported his version of events.

But the Court of Apeal kicked out his challenge, saying the experts' views "added nothing of substance" to evidence heard by the trial jury.

That decision, however, did not deter Workman from suing Deansgate, claiming their negligence robbed him of a "substantial chance" of being acquitted.

Striking out his claim today, Mr Justice Davis said there was "no evidence" to support Workman's claim that he acted in self-defence.

The Court of Appeal's decision made it clear that, even had biomechanical experts been called to testify at his trial, he would still have been convicted.

And he accepted Deansgate's argument that his claim "amounts to a collateral attack on the verdict of the jury in his criminal trial."

Workman was trying to re-open "effectively the same issues" that had already been decided against him by the Court of Appeal, the judge added.