Lord Woolf joins hundreds of barristers in condemning bar training shakeup

More than 500 barristers have signed an open letter opposing the Bar Standards Board’s proposals to shake up the training regime for would-be barristers.

In a letter published today, the barristers, who include former master of the rolls and lord chief justice Lord Woolf, say the consultation is not ‘guided by a proper understanding’ of the BSB’s objective of promoting and protecting the public interest.

In September last year, the BSB proposed three options for new training methods.

The proposed routes include a ‘managed pathways’ approach, in which courses are more flexible and fit with the requirements of students; a ‘bar-specific’ approach, which require students to take a specialist exam; or sticking with the current system. According to the BSB, the ‘managed pathways’ approach is its preferred option.

The open letter condemns as 'absurd' the idea of barristers taking an exam, as solicitors may have to if proposals for a Solicitors Qualifying Exam are approved. It is ‘inconceivable’, the letter goes on to say, that a single exam or series of exams could adequately assess all of the topics ordinarily covered.

Calling the proposals ‘radical and unappealing’, the open letter says it would be ’difficult and expensive’ for the BSB to set and mark an examination capable of testing all the foundational areas of legal knowledge.

The letter, sent to BSB chair Andrew Burns, signed by 505 barristers, as well as a string of student barristers, says the BSB’s preference for the ‘managed pathways’ option is not based on any research.

‘Further, the regulatory costs associated with approving and quality-assuring multiple routes are simply ignored,’ it adds.

The Bar Council has already criticised the proposals as missing a ‘long-awaited opportunity for reform’.

In the open letter, the barristers agree with the council’s position, adding that the ‘underlying cause’ of the current problems is that the BPTC provision has become a ‘self serving’ industry which has ‘vastly outgrown its raison d’être of training people in preparation for their becoming one of the people who commence providing legal services'.

Instead, it says the BSB should focus on ensuring that those with a realistic prospect of obtaining pupillage receive ‘high quality training’ at the most efficient cost.

According to the letter, just 430 pupillages are available every year, while more than 1,500 people commence the BPTC.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lord Woolf joins hundreds of barristers in condemning bar training shakeup

505 barristers condemn BSB training shake-up

More than 500 barristers have signed an open letter against the Bar Standards Board’s proposals to shake up the training regime for would-be barristers.

In a letter published today, the barristers, who include former master of the rolls and lord chief justice Lord Woolf, say the consultation is not ‘guided by a proper understanding’ of the BSB’s objective of promoting and protecting the public interest.

In September last year, the BSB proposed three options for new training methods.

The proposed routes include a ‘managed pathways’ approach, in which courses are more flexible and fit with the requirements of students; a ‘bar-specific’ approach, which require students to take a specialist exam; or sticking with the current system. According to the BSB, the ‘managed pathways’ approach is its preferred option.

The open letter condemns as 'absurd' the idea of barristers taking an exam, as solicitors may have to if proposals for a Solicitors Qualifying Exam are approved. It is ‘inconceivable’, the letter goes on to say, that a single exam or series of exams could adequately assess all of the topics ordinarily covered.

Calling the proposals ‘radical and unappealing’, the open letter says it would be ’difficult and expensive’ for the BSB to set and mark an examination capable of testing all the foundational areas of legal knowledge.

The letter, sent to BSB chair Andrew Burns, signed by 505 barristers, as well as a string of student barristers, says the BSB’s preference for the ‘managed pathways’ option is not based on any research.

‘Further, the regulatory costs associated with approving and quality-assuring multiple routes are simply ignored,’ it adds.

The Bar Council has already criticised the proposals as missing a ‘long-awaited opportunity for reform’.

In the open letter, the barristers agree with the council’s position, adding that the ‘underlying cause’ of the current problems is that the BPTC provision has become a ‘self serving’ industry which has ‘vastly outgrown its raison d’être of training people in preparation for their becoming one of the people who commence providing legal services'.

Instead, it says the BSB should focus on ensuring that those with a realistic prospect of obtaining pupillage receive ‘high quality training’ at the most efficient cost.

According to the letter, just 430 pupillages are available every year, while more than 1,500 people commence the BPTC.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

505 barristers condemn BSB training shake-up

Government snubs calls for hefty cut in tribunal fees

The government has rebuffed calls for a substantial cut in employment tribunal fees, claiming the regime introduced in 2013 is 'working well'.

However, a long-awaited review published this afternoon proposes to raise the threshold for fee remissions to level of the government's 'living wage' and consult on proposals to extend support to people on low incomes.

In a written ministerial statement, justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said tribunal fees have been ‘generally successful’ in meeting the scheme's original objectives.

He added: 'This government believes it is important that those who can afford to pay for ETs continue to do so. An extra £9m a year is raised through ET fees. The review concludes that fees have been successful in promoting conciliation as an alternative way to resolve workplace disputes.’

Recourse to employment tribunals has plummeted since the fees were introduced. In November last year, the Trades Union Congress published figures showing that the number of claims brought is down by an average of 9,000 a month.

Last year the Commons justice committee added its voice to calls for a 'substantial' cut in fees. In an initial submission to the review in late-2015, the Law Society called for a new system whereby claims would be dealt with flexibly based on their complexity and the financial stakes involved. In turn, Chancery Lane argued, the savings would enable the fees to be scrapped altogether. 

The ministry’s review today states 'there is no conclusive evidence that ET fees have prevented people from bringing claims’ and describes the higher numbers turning to ACAS is a ’positive outcome’.

Heald said this indicated that the current system is ’generally working effectively and is operating lawfully’.

Ther Moj will consult however on proposals to extend support to people on low incomes through its ‘Help with Fees’ scheme, concerning which Heald said there is a 'general lack of awareness'. 

Under the proposals, people earning £1,250 a month would be exempt from fees, up from £1,085 now. Heald said the new threshold is broadly the equivalent of someone earning the national living wage. There will be additional allowances for people living as couples and those with children.

The ministry will ‘bring forward’ further measures to improve legal support in a green paper by early 2018 and the Prison and Courts bill, Heald said. 

The extended scheme will benefit women, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled and younger people, who all feature disproportionately among low income groups, he argued.

Fees will be remitted for certain proceedings related to payments made from the National Insurance Fund.

The proposals will also apply to those bringing proceedings in the civil and family courts, and most other tribunals.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Government snubs calls for hefty cut in tribunal fees

Bank fined £163m for money laundering failings

The Financial Conduct Authority has fined Deutsche Bank AG more than £160 million for failing to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering framework.

The fine, which totals £63,076,224, is the largest financial penalty imposed for AML offences, the FCA said.

According to the FCA, the bank, which failed to control its AML framework between January 2012 and December 2015, was used by unidentified customers to transfer around $10 billion from Russia to offshore bank accounts in a manner that was ‘highly suggestive’ of financial crime.

Mark Steward, director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: ‘Financial crime is a risk to the UK financial system. The size of the fine reflects the seriousness of Deutsche Bank’s failings. Other firms should take notice of today’s fine and look again at their own AML procedures to ensure they do not face similar action.’

The FCA also found that Deutsche Bank:

• Performed inadequate customer due diligence;
• Used flawed customer and country risk rating methodologies;
• Lacked automated AML systems for detecting suspicious trades and
• Failed to provide adequate oversight of trades booked in the UK by traders in non-UK jurisdictions.

The AML failings also allowed the front office of Deutsche Bank’s Russia-based subsidiary to execute more than 2,400 pairs of trades that mirrored each other between April 2012 and October 2014.

The mirror trades were used by customers of Deutsche Bank and DB Moscow to transfer more than $6bn from Russia, through Deutsche Bank in the UK, to overseas bank accounts.

Deutsche Bank agreed to settle at an early stage of the FCA’s investigation and qualified for a 30% discount.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bank fined £163m for money laundering failings

Shiner paid £500 per referral as he 'lost his bearings'

Philip Shiner’s firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) received more than £1.6m through a fee-sharing agreement in relation to Iraqi civilian claims against the British government, a tribunal has heard.

Shiner was involved in a tripartite agreement with national firm Leigh Day and an individual named Mazin Youniss to split proceeds from the claims.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Leigh Day paid PIL the money over two instalments, as well as paying Youniss a total of £1.65m.

The tribunal stressed that Leigh Day’s conduct was not under any scrutiny during the Shiner hearing.

Representing the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges against Shiner, Andrew Tabachnik of 39 Essex Chambers, said the figures showed this was a ‘lucrative’ part of Shiner’s business.

But the tribunal heard the human rights lawyer had disregarded rules surrounding referral fees, including the requirement to secure an advance written agreement between the parties involved and providing clients with information about the arrangement.

Tabachnik said: ‘It appears unfortunately to be the position that, recognising the potential sums were likely to be recoverable through these arrangements, the appropriate level of care and attention was not put to the legalities and proprieties of the relevant referral agreements.’

The tribunal heard that Shiner, who has not been present during this week's tribunal hearing, admitted three charges relating to  authorising, procuring and providing payments that were in breach of SRA rules.

In mid-September 2007, the tribunal heard, Youniss was paid £2,000 in relation to four clients in relation to the Al Sweady inquiry into allegations of war crimes. The agreement continued with Youniss paid £500 for each client introduced.

A new tripartite agreement was later put together after concerns were raised about the arrangements, with Tabachnik saying the parties had ‘lost their bearings’.

Shiner denies dishonesty in relation to the payments, saying he was ignorant to the fact that payments for historic matters were in breach of regulatory rules. The SRA said that position changed.

The tribunal heard that Youniss had threatened to withhold information about potential clients until he was paid, before the new agreement was made.

The SRA alleged that Shiner had providing a misleading and incomplete response when the regulator made contact with him, the tribunal heard. Again he denied a charge of dishonesty in relation to this, saying he was not responsible for his actions at this time due to stress and the matters dating back so far.

The SRA said any misgivings about cold-calling that Shiner may have had were put to one side as ‘this was not an opportunity he was prepared to let slip’.

The hearing continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner paid £500 per referral as he 'lost his bearings'

Shiner paid £500 for each referral as he 'lost his bearings'

Philip Shiner’s firm Public Interest Lawyers received more than £1.6m through a fee-sharing agreement in relation to Iraqi civilian claims against the British government, a tribunal has heard.

Shiner was involved in a tripartite agreement with national firm Leigh Day and an individual named Mazine Youniss to split proceeds from the claims.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard Leigh Day paid PIL the money over two instalments, as well as paying Youniss a total of £1.65m.

The tribunal stressed that Leigh Day’s conduct was not under any scrutiny during the Shiner hearing.

Representing the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges against Shiner, Andrew Tabachnik of 39 Essex Chambers, said the figures showed this was a ‘lucrative’ part of Shiner’s business.

But the tribunal heard the human rights lawyer had disregarded rules surrounding referral fees, including the requirement to secure an advance written agreement between the parties involved and providing clients with information about the arrangement.

Tabachnik said: ‘It appears unfortunately to be the position that, recognising the potential sums were likely to be recoverable through these arrangements, the appropriate level of care and attention was not put to the legalities and proprieties of the relevant referral agreements.’

The tribunal heard Shiner, who has not been present during the tribunal hearing this week, admitted three charges relating to him authorising, procuring and providing payments that were in breach of SRA rules.

In mid-September 2007, the tribunal heard the first of the Al-Sweady clients were located, with Youniss paid £2,000 in relation to four clients. The agreement continued with Youniss paid £500 for each client introduced.

A new tripartite agreement was later put together after concerns were raised about the arrangements, with Tabachnik saying the parties had ‘lost their bearings’.

Shiner denies dishonesty in relation to the payments, saying he was ignorant to the fact that payments for historic matters were in breach of regulatory rules. The SRA said that position changed.

The tribunal heard Youniss had threatened to withhold information about potential clients until he was paid, before the new agreement was made.

The tribunal also heard the SRA allege Shiner had providing a misleading and incomplete response when the regulator had made contact with him. Again he denied a charge of dishonesty in relation to this, saying he was not responsible for his actions at this time due to stress and the matters dating back so far.

The SRA said any misgivings about cold calling that Shiner may have had were put to one side as ‘this was not an opportunity he was prepared to let slip’.

The hearing continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner paid £500 for each referral as he 'lost his bearings'

Bar Council ‘deeply concerned’ over fixed recoverable costs proposals

The Bar Council is the latest representative body to announce its opposition to proposals to increase the limit for fixed recoverable costs in civil claims - warning of the impact on solicitors as well as its own members.

In a submission today to the review of fixed recoverable costs, the council said it was ‘deeply concerned’ that fixed costs at ‘unreasonable levels of remuneration’ would see solicitors and barristers not able to undertake work and would hinder access to justice.

The council added that, even though it does not speak for solicitors, they ‘are the life and blood of a thriving bar’.

‘An extension of the fixed costs regime both horizontally and vertically is likely to place solicitors under increasing commercial/financial pressure, with the result that many will exit the market in low value claims,’ it said.

The council joins the Law Society and the Commercial Litigation Association in opposing the plans. Those organisations submitted their responses earlier this week.

Lord Justice Jackson is in the process of gathering evidence for his review into a potential extension of costs for all civil claims worth up to £250,000.

Current fixed costs apply only to personal injury claims valued up to £25,000.

While the Bar Council said it ‘accepts that the time has come to extend the fixed costs in the Fast Track beyond the current cohort of personal injury cases,’ any extension must be evidence based. ‘It is crucial that the fixed costs arrived at are sufficiently remunerative to avoid an adverse impact on access to justice,’ it said.

‘The fundamental premise that fixed costs will reduce what lawyers charge to their clients is far from proven or established evidentially or at all,’ the council added.

In an interview with the Gazette earlier this month, Andrew Langdon (pictured), chairman of the bar, spoke of his concerns about the proposals.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bar Council ‘deeply concerned’ over fixed recoverable costs proposals

Blacker files to Court of Appeal

Former solicitor-advocate Alan Blacker has announced a new challenge to his striking off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. He revealed today that he is to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the High Court's refusal earlier this month to overturn a decision to strike him off for accounts breaches and making misleading statements about his qualifications.

His pro-bono representative, Dr Anton van Dellen of Goldsmith Chambers, told the Gazette that the appeal would argue that the High Court was wrong to classify the SDT listing of Blacker's case as a judicial function, and therefore exempt from the Equality Act 2000. Blacker had claimed that his disability prevented him from travelling to the London hearing. 

'Alan's argument is that the decision to hold the hearing in London was an administrative not a judicial function,' van Dellen said. 'He considers that it is very important that decisions about where hearings are heard should fall within the scope of legislation passed to protect the rights of people with disabilities.'

Blacker said he is also appealing against costs of £86,000 imposed. 'He considers that the manner in which such high costs are awarded against solicitors should be reviewed by the Court of Appeal as it is an important point of principle or practice,' van Dellen said. 

The High Court heard this month that Blacker had yet to pay a penny of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's costs and that the appeal had added another £15,237 to the bill. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Blacker files to Court of Appeal

Barrister boasted he could get ‘Stevie Wonder a driving licence’

A barrister facing a string of misconduct charges claimed on his website that he could get ‘Stevie Wonder a driving licence’, a tribunal heard yesterday. Michael Wolkind, of 2 Bedford Row, is also accused of being ‘patronising’ to the prosecution during a murder trial in 2013.

He allegedly told prosecutor Brian Altman QC, that he had told ‘a whopper of a lie’ and was ‘flying away from the real world on a jet plane’.

Wolkind, who is accused of 10 professional misconduct charges, is appearing before a two-day hearing by the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service at Gray’s Inn Square.

Wolkind’s website, where he made the alleged claim about driving licences, came to the attention of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the lord chief justice during an appeal against the 2013 murder conviction of Wolkind’s former client Robert Ekaireb.

At the appeal, heard in 2015, Thomas upheld the conviction but the tribunal heard Wolkind had made ‘completely unprofessional’ personal criticism of Altman during his closing speech.

Lord Thomas said Wolkind’s closing speech was ‘ill-judged, patronising and contained inappropriate attempts at humour’.

Ekaireb was convicted of murdering his wife, Li Hua Cao, in 2013.

Wolkind admits to six charges relating to his website, but denies the Steve Wonder comments. He also denies professional misconduct relating to alleged comments against the prosecution counsel in the Ekaireb case, and comments in another trial.

The hearing continues. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Barrister boasted he could get ‘Stevie Wonder a driving licence’

Supreme Court hears council’s challenge to school absence case

The Supreme Court is today hearing a case involving a father who was fined and prosecuted for taking his daughter out of school during term time. 

John Platt was taken to court by Isle of Wight Council for taking his daughter on a seven day trip to Florida during the school term after being refused permission by the head teacher. 

Platt was fined £60 but did not pay the fine by the initial deadline meaning the local authority doubled his penalty to £120.

When he refused to pay the second fine he was prosecuted on the basis of an alleged failure to secure his daughter’s regular attendance at school, which the council said was in breach of the Education Act 1996.

Isle of Wight Council v Platt made its way to the Supreme Court after both the Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court and the High Court ruling in Platt’s favour. The magistrates’ court held that the  daughter was a regular attender, with a 92.3% attendance rate, and that there was no case to answer.

On appeal, the High Court found that the magistrates’ court was entitled to take into account attendance outside the offence dates when determining the attendance of the  daughter.

The Department for Education is meeting the council’s legal costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Supreme Court hears council’s challenge to school absence case

Transparency proposals 'could mislead clients' - Society

Providing raw regulatory data on solicitor firms could mislead clients and undermine their ability to exercise informed choice, the Law Society said today. Responding to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) discussion paper on regulatory data and consumer choice, Society president Robert Bourns said: ’The provision of raw regulatory data without proper context has the potential to mislead clients and undermine their ability to exercise informed choice - more information does not inevitably mean better information.’

The SRA’s paper, published last October, proposed making available ‘core data’ on a digital register 'to help consumers make informed choices and drive competition'. 

However Bourns said Solicitors already help their clients make informed choices 'by providing information that is relevant to the matter in hand and the value they add before, during and after working with them'.

Bourns also urged caution over plans to require firms to publish fees for certain services. 'Regulation can be a blunt instrument and legal services are not widgets. Where possible - as is the case with price information - solutions driven by client demand are more flexible and less costly than regulation.'

He added: 'Helping clients to make informed choices about legal services is at the heart of every solicitor’s practice. 

The Law Society’s Transparency Toolkit supports solicitors to provide the most relevant and useful information in the most appropriate way for their clients, employing a range of delivery mechanisms including online platforms.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Transparency proposals 'could mislead clients' - Society

Transparency proposals 'could mislead clients'

Providing raw regulatory data on solicitor firms could mislead clients and undermine their ability to exercise informed choice, the Law Society said today. Responding to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) discussion paper on regulatory data and consumer choice, Society president Robert Bourns said: ’The provision of raw regulatory data without proper context has the potential to mislead clients and undermine their ability to exercise informed choice - more information does not inevitably mean better information.’

The SRA’s paper, published last October, proposed making available ‘core data’ on a digital register 'to help consumers make informed choices and drive competition'. 

However Bourns said Solicitors already help their clients make informed choices 'by providing information that is relevant to the matter in hand and the value they add before, during and after working with them'.

Bourns also urged caution over plans to require firms to publish fees for certain services. 'Regulation can be a blunt instrument and legal services are not widgets. Where possible - as is the case with price information - solutions driven by client demand are more flexible and less costly than regulation.'

He added: 'Helping clients to make informed choices about legal services is at the heart of every solicitor’s practice. 

The Law Society’s Transparency Toolkit supports solicitors to provide the most relevant and useful information in the most appropriate way for their clients, employing a range of delivery mechanisms including online platforms.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Transparency proposals 'could mislead clients'

Veteran solicitor who couldn't sell his firm suspended after hiring fraudsters

A sole practitioner looking for a way out of his firm has been suspended after employing people without background checks who turned out to be criminals.

Nicholas John Huber, a solicitor of almost 40 years who practised from Tiverton, Devon, had run his firm since 1987 but was seeking for four years to sell it.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that he was introduced to a non-practising solicitor, referred to as ZS, in January 2015, who brought in two more individuals, referred to as ZR and MM, with the intention of forming a partnership so that Huber could retire after six months.

But the partnership never traded and Huber remained as sole practitioner, employing ZR and MM as fee-earners until July 2015.

Huber allowed ZS and a fourth individual to work at a new branch office in London, without taking any steps to check their identity, employment history or qualifications. The firm then fell victim to a fraud as a property transaction was not carried out properly by those Huber had failed to supervise.

The tribunal heard Huber, who was the named compliance officer, had to email ZS in May 2015 to check who was being employed by the firm and where they were practising from. He also did not have access to the firm’s website, set up by ZS.

With regard to money laundering regulations, it was heard that Huber had failed to verify the identity of purported clients in a property transaction. It subsequently transpired they were not the genuine owners of the property in question. Huber failed to ensure that people working for his firm undertook anti-money laundering training.

The firm purported to act for clients in the £2.6m sale of the London property, but concerns were raised over its failure to redeem and discharge the mortgage over the property.

Huber authorised transfers to companies that had no connection to the clients, each time without proper enquiries and due diligence.

The tribunal found Huber had failed to uphold SRA principles but had not acted recklessly.

In mitigation, Huber said he was introduced to ZS by a reputable company and had been assured by him he was interested in moving to Devon for a better quality of life.

All the monies had been returned to the purchaser’s solicitors together with costs and interest. He had enjoyed many years of unblemished practice and said this had been a one-off incident where he had been an innocent victim of fraud.

The tribunal accepted that Huber had been ‘deceived by third parties’ and he had shown insight into his conduct and had closed down his firm in an orderly way.

‘This was a case where [Huber] had failed to supervise his staff and he had not carried out proper checks on individuals who were allowed to carry out transactions which resulted in fraud,’ said the tribunal judgment.

‘[Huber’s] supervision had been totally inadequate and this allowed criminals to commit fraud from his office. This was all grossly negligent… Taking into account how directly related to criminal activity this was and how grossly negligent and cavalier [he] had behaved the tribunal had found he acted with a lack of integrity.’

Huber was suspended from practice for 18 months and will have to apply for permission to ever run a firm or hold client money again. He was also ordered to pay £7,500 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Veteran solicitor who couldn't sell his firm suspended after hiring fraudsters

Shiner tribunal hears of ‘deliberate and calculating lies’

Human rights lawyer Philip Shiner showed a 'clear disregard for the rules' surrounding what solicitors can and cannot do and thought the ends of his actions would justify the means, a tribunal heard today.

On the first day of a hearing into allegations of misconduct, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that ‘deliberate and calculated lies’ were told to the Al Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities by British soldiers in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

Shiner faces 24 charges relating to his conduct. He did not attend today's hearing, which went ahead after a request for an adjournment was overrruled.

The tribunal heard that Shiner has admitted to charges including encouraging and authorising unsolicited direct approaches to potential clients arising out of the 2004 ‘battle of Danny Boy’ in Iraq. The individual he used was named in the tribunal today as Mazine Youniss.

Representing the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges against Shiner, Andrew Tabachnik of 39 Essex Chambers said: ‘What this amounts to is that Shiner thought the ends would justify the means of his actions’.

He said that in soliciting clients he showed ‘a clear disregard for the rules that solicitors abide by’.

Tabachnik also read a statement from Colonel James Coote, who as a major commanding British troops during the battle of Danny Boy.

Coote said that Shiner's allegations were some of the most serious brought against British troops since the second world war and that he and many of his men had lost faith in the legal profession.

Earlier today, Shiner failed to get the case adjourned on the grounds that he was too unwell to attend court and did not have the money to fight the case.

The hearing, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner tribunal hears of ‘deliberate and calculating lies’

Retiring solicitor suspended after hiring fraudsters

A sole practitioner looking for a way out of his firm has been suspended after employing people without background checks who turned out to be criminals.

Nicholas John Huber, a solicitor of almost 40 years who practised from Tiverton, Devon, had run his firm since 1987 but was seeking for four years to sell it.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that he was introduced to a non-practising solicitor, referred to as ZS, in January 2015, who brought in two more individuals, referred to as ZR and MM, with the intention of forming a partnership so that Huber could retire after six months.

But the partnership never traded and Huber remained as sole practitioner, employing ZR and MM as fee-earners until July 2015.

Huber allowed ZS and a fourth individual to work at a new branch office in London, without taking any steps to check their identity, employment history or qualifications. The firm then fell victim to a fraud as a property transaction was not carried out properly by those Huber had failed to supervise.

The tribunal heard Huber, who was the named compliance officer, had to email ZS in May 2015 to check who was being employed by the firm and where they were practising from. He also did not have access to the firm’s website, set up by ZS.

With regard to money laundering regulations, it was heard that Huber had failed to verify the identity of purported clients in a property transaction. It subsequently transpired they were not the genuine owners of the property in question. Huber failed to ensure that people working for his firm undertook anti-money laundering training.

The firm purported to act for clients in the £2.6m sale of the London property, but concerns were raised over its failure to redeem and discharge the mortgage over the property.

Huber authorised transfers to companies that had no connection to the clients, each time without proper enquiries and due diligence.

The tribunal found Huber had failed to uphold SRA principles but had not acted recklessly.

In mitigation, Huber said he was introduced to ZS by a reputable company and had been assured by him he was interested in moving to Devon for a better quality of life.

All the monies had been returned to the purchaser’s solicitors together with costs and interest. He had enjoyed many years of unblemished practice and said this had been a one-off incident where he had been an innocent victim of fraud.

The tribunal accepted that Huber had been ‘deceived by third parties’ and he had shown insight into his conduct and had closed down his firm in an orderly way.

‘This was a case where [Huber] had failed to supervise his staff and he had not carried out proper checks on individuals who were allowed to carry out transactions which resulted in fraud,’ said the tribunal judgment.

‘[Huber’s] supervision had been totally inadequate and this allowed criminals to commit fraud from his office. This was all grossly negligent… Taking into account how directly related to criminal activity this was and how grossly negligent and cavalier [he] had behaved the tribunal had found he acted with a lack of integrity.’

Huber was suspended from practice for 18 months and will have to apply for permission to ever run a firm or hold client money again. He was also ordered to pay £7,500 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Retiring solicitor suspended after hiring fraudsters

Retiring solicitor 'grossly negligent' to allow property fraud

A sole practitioner looking for a way out of his firm has been suspended after employing people without background checks who turned out to be criminals.

Nicholas John Huber, a solicitor of almost 40 years who practised from Tiverton, Devon, had run his firm since 1987 but was seeking for four years to sell it.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that he was introduced to a non-practising solicitor, referred to as ZS, in January 2015, who brought in two more individuals, referred to as ZR and MM, with the intention of forming a partnership so that Huber could retire after six months.

But the partnership never traded and Huber remained as sole practitioner, employing ZR and MM as fee earners until July 2015.

Huber allowed ZS and a fourth individual to work at a new branch office in London, without taking any steps to check their identity, employment history or qualifications. The firm then fell victim to a fraud as a property transaction was not carried out properly by those Huber had failed to supervise.

The tribunal heard Huber, who was the named compliance officer, had to email ZS in May 2015 to check who was being employed by the firm and where they were practising from. He also did not have access to the firm’s website, set up by ZS.

With regards to money laundering regulations, it was heard that Huber had failed to verify the identity of purported clients in a property transaction. It subsequently transpired they were not the genuine owners of the property in question. Huber failed to ensure that people working for his firm undertook anti-money laundering training.

The firm purported to act for clients in the £2.6m sale of the London property, but concerns were raised over its failure to redeem and discharge the mortgage over the property.

Huber authorised transfers to companies that had no connection to the clients, each time without proper enquiries and due diligence.

The tribunal found Huber had failed to uphold SRA principles but had not acted recklessly.

In mitigation, Huber said he was introduced to ZS by a reputable company and had been assured by him he was interested in moving to Devon for a better quality of life.

All the monies had been returned to the purchaser’s solicitors together with costs and interest. He had enjoyed many years of unblemished practice and said this had been a one-off incident where he had been an innocent victim of fraud.

The tribunal accepted that Huber had been ‘deceived by third parties’ and he had shown insight into his conduct and had closed down his firm in an orderly way.

‘This was a case where [Huber] had failed to supervise his staff and he had not carried out proper checks on individuals who were allowed to carry out transactions which resulted in fraud,’ said the tribunal judgment.

‘[Huber’s] supervision had been totally inadequate and this allowed criminals to commit fraud from his office. This was all grossly negligent… Taking into account how directly related to criminal activity this was and how grossly negligent and cavalier [he] had behaved the tribunal had found he acted with a lack of integrity.’

Huber was suspended from practice for 18 months and will have to apply for permission to ever run a firm or hold client money again. He was also ordered to pay £7,500 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Retiring solicitor 'grossly negligent' to allow property fraud

Simpson Millar owner reviews business amid job loss speculation

Listed legal business Fairpoint Group will examine ‘certain structural changes’ as part of ongoing efforts to turn its recent fortunes around.

The company has started a consultation process with staff about the future of the business. The Gazette understands all options, including redundancies, are open at this stage.

Reports have suggested the Simpson Millar owner has placed 300 jobs under threat, but Fairpoint has stressed that the consultation is about listening to staff and that no decisions have been made.

In a statement, the company said: ‘The group has entered a consultation process to agree certain structural changes.

‘This process reflects the group’s previous announcements that its debt management business will be closed in early 2017, that its core strategic focus going forward would be on its legal services business, and also reflects the group’s plans to mitigate the impact of the recently announced reduction in expected trading performance. The consultation process will determine which structural changes will be made in time.’

The Gazette understands that discussions will be held about the Simpson Millar office in Newcastle, for which the lease is due to expire soon. The firm has another office in nearby Gateshead.

Fairpoint entered the legal services market in 2014 with the purchase of national firm Simpson Millar in a deal worth £15m.

The company reported to the London Stock Exchange last month that full-year results for 2016 are likely to be ‘materially below market expectations’.

Fairpoint had already reported in September that it had increased borrowing to fund acquisitions as it sought to expand its legal services provision and focus less on its original debt recovery business.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Simpson Millar owner reviews business amid job loss speculation

Shiner told ‘deliberate and calculating lies’, tribunal hears

Human rights lawyer Philip Shiner showed a 'clear disregard for the rules' surrounding what solicitors can and cannot do and thought the ends of his actions would justify the means, a tribunal heard today.

On the first day of a hearing into allegations of misconduct, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Shiner told ‘deliberate and calculated lies’ when pursuing claims against British soldiers in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

Shiner faces 24 charges relating to his conduct. He did not attend today's hearing, which went ahead after a request for an adjournment was overrruled.

The tribunal heard that Shiner has admitted to charges including encouraging and authorising unsolicited direct approaches to potential clients arising out of the 2004 ‘battle of Danny Boy’ in Iraq. The individual he used was named in the tribunal today as Mazene Youniss.

Representing the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges against Shiner, Andrew Tabachnik of 39 Essex Chambers said: ‘What this amounts to is that Shiner thought the ends would justify the means of his actions’.

He said that in soliciting clients he showed ‘a clear disregard for the rules that solicitors abide by’.

Tabachnik also read a statement from Colonel James Coote, who as a major commanding British troops during the battle of Danny Boy.

Coote said that Shiner's allegations were some of the most serious brought against British troops since the second world war and that he and many of his men had lost faith in the legal profession.

Earlier today, Shiner failed to get the case adjourned on the grounds that he was too unwell to attend court and did not have the money to fight the case.

The hearing, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner told ‘deliberate and calculating lies’, tribunal hears

Phil Shiner tribunal rejects ‘manoeuvre’ to delay case

A disciplinary hearing into alleged misconduct by human rights solicitor Philip Shiner went ahead today despite a last-ditch request to adjourn proceedings. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal rejected claims by Shiner, formerly head of Public Interest Lawyers, that he was too distressed to attend and did not have enough money to fight the charges.

Andrew Tabachnik, counsel for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges, said Shiner was unwilling to cooperate and trying to ‘manoeuvre’ the tribunal into delaying the case.

Tabachnik told the Tribunal there was nothing in Shiner’s medical notes and psychological assessments that suggested he was unable to attend the hearing. The tribunal also rejected attempts to delay the hearing until Shiner could attend, saying it was in the public interest to start proceedings.

Tabachnik said it would be ‘perverse’ to delay proceedings in what was already a long-running trial.

Shiner, who ran claims on behalf of Iraqi civilians against British armed forces, faces 24 charges. He did not attend today's hearing. 

The hearing, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Phil Shiner tribunal rejects ‘manoeuvre’ to delay case

Shiner tribunal rejects ‘manoeuvre’ to delay case

A disciplinary hearing into alleged misconduct by human rights solicitor Philip Shiner went ahead today despite a last-ditch request to adjourn proceedings. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal rejected claims by Shiner, formerly head of Public Interest Lawyers, that he was too distressed to attend and did not have enough money to fight the charges.

Andrew Tabachnik, counsel for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which brought the charges, said Shiner was unwilling to cooperate and trying to ‘manoeuvre’ the tribunal into delaying the case.

Tabachnik told the Tribunal there was nothing in Shiner’s medical notes and psychological assessments that suggested he was unable to attend the hearing. The tribunal also rejected attempts to delay the hearing until Shiner could attend, saying it was in the public interest to start proceedings.

Tabachnik said it would be ‘perverse’ to delay proceedings in what was already a long-running trial.

Shiner, who ran claims on behalf of Iraqi civilians against British armed forces, faces 24 charges. He has denied failing to comply with his duty of full and frank disclosure to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of mistreatment by British soldiers and failing to comply with his duties over legal aid payments from the former Legal Services Commission.

In a letter to the tribunal last month he admitted fully or in part 18 of the charges.

The hearing, which is expected to last three weeks, continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner tribunal rejects ‘manoeuvre’ to delay case

Lawyer groups urge Jackson to rethink fixed costs plans

Organisations across the profession have urged Lord Justice Jackson to be cautious about significant increases in the limit for fixed costs.

The judge is in the process of gathering evidence for his review into a potential extension of fixed recoverable costs for all civil claims worth up to £250,000.

The consultation closes this week, and Jackson will find a body of evidence in his inbox urging him to rein in plans for such a major extension.

The Law Society said today the proposals risk making many cases economically unviable, leaving either successful claimants, or their lawyers, to foot the bill even if they have won their case.

President Robert Bourns said: ‘If the sum is fixed, then for at least some cases and possibly most, the costs that a successful party could recover will fall significantly short of the costs they have incurred.

‘Either they will have to meet the costs out of their own pockets, or out of their compensation, or the solicitor will have to do the work for the recoverable costs only.’

Bourns said the Society acknowledges that fixed costs offer assurance for both sides in straightforward, low-value claims, but that it was wrong to apply the same rules to all cases.

The Commercial Litigation Association insisted that fixing recoverable costs by reference to monetary value was itself ‘unjustifiable’.

Its consultation response added: ‘There is no correlation between the value of a case and its complexity. A case worth a lot of money may be simple in terms of complexity and detail, whereas a case worth a relatively small amount of money may be complex and time-sensitive.’

The group said there needs to be improvements in the efficiency of the court service before any recommendations to extend the fixed costs regime, with a simplification of procedural rules and a lowering of judges’ expectations from represented parties.

It added that unreasonable conduct of opposing parties and litigants in person is a significant contributing factor to the cost of litigation.

The Association of Costs Lawyers said it was too soon after other civil justice reforms to consider such an extension of fixed fees.

It said Jackson’s own 2013 reforms, which imposed new directions on budgeting, have already helped to control excessive costs and need more time to take effect.

Simon Murray, chair of the ACL’s fixed costs working group and chief executive of specialist costs law firm NeoLaw, said: ‘The overarching concerns of the membership are that if there is to be any extension to FRCs, timing is key and the level of fees must be informed by meaningful data provided by all of the key stakeholders in the legal industry.

‘Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ system will be achievable and so a tailored approach to the various classes of action will be required.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lawyer groups urge Jackson to rethink fixed costs plans

Doctor jailed after submitting false medical claims

A doctor has been jailed for two years for submitting false medical claims adding up to £183,000 to solicitors acting in personal injury claims by road traffic accident victims. 

Registered GP Benjamin Chang, 57, of Sunnyfield, Mill Hill, London, was found guilty at the Old Bailey on Friday of one count of fraud by false representation and for being in possession of articles for use in fraud and money laundering. He will also be subject to a confiscation order.

City of London Police said that Chang was employed to conduct medical exams on behalf of solicitors for people who were making PI claims.

Chang would make medical assessments through his medical agency, Hertford Healthcare, based in Milton Keynes. He would then invoice solicitors for the medical assessment and later send another invoice from a company called Proteus Healthcare, which he claimed had provided the patients with eight to 10 physiotherapy sessions following the initial assessment.

City of London Police said Proteus Healthcare did not exist and was registered to an address where another business, with no knowledge of Proteus, was operating. The physiotherapist who was supposed to have provided the treatment did not exist.

The fraud was exposed when a claimant who saw physiotherapy treatment provided by Proteus Healthcare listed as an item on their claim informed their solicitor that they had never received physiotherapy nor heard of Proteus Healthcare. The solicitor then notified the police. 

City of London Police said further investigation revealed that Chang had invoiced the solicitors' firm for 18 claimants’ physiotherapy treatment provided by Proteus Healthcare. None of the claimants had received such treatment and three had not received a medical assessment from Chang.

Chang’s sentencing follows a three-year investigation by City of London Police’s insurance fraud enforcement department.

Detective constable Mick Jones, who led the investigation, said: ’Doctor Chang committed fraud for a number of years and completely abused his position to do so. The solicitors who employed Chang trusted him to provide a service for their claimants. Instead of doing this he bowed to his own greed and used the opportunity to make money that he simply wasn’t entitled to.’

He added: 'This extensive three-year investigation into Chang’s criminal behaviour took a team of officers all over the country as well as to Gibraltar, where we were able to unpick some of his financial wrongdoing.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Doctor jailed after submitting false medical claims

Boost for sole practitioners as HSBC raises conveyancing threshold

Nearly five years after the Law Society successfully campaigned for HSBC to expand its conveyancing panel to include all firms accredited under Chancery Lane’s specialist kitemark, the High Street lender has raised the mortgage threshold for sole practitioners who can act for the bank and borrowers.

HSBC has announced that it will increase the loan threshold imposed on sole practitioners registered under the Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) from £150,000 to £350,000.

HSBC’s head of secured lending, Tracie Pearce, said the bank’s decision would provider ‘greater choice and flexibility’ for customers and cut homebuying costs.

The Society welcomed the change, which came into force today. Robert Bourns, president, said: ‘The CQS accreditation marks a solicitor’s commitment to maintaining the highest standard of skill and service, and the value solicitors bring to an often complex deal.

‘HSBC’s decision shows that those dealing with conveyancers know that when a solicitor is CQS-accredited they can be relied upon to be at the top of their game. It is a welcome change that will benefit both solicitors and their clients.’

In 2012 HSBC agreed to amend its conveyancing approach to enable all CQS-accredited solicitors to act for HSBC and its mortgage customers, following a four-month campaign by the Society. CQS-accredited sole practitioners were able to handle all cases with mortgage values up to £150,000.

Previously only firms on HSBC’s managed panel of conveyancers were able to act for the borrower and lender, with all other firms able to act for the borrower only.

Under HSBC’s conveyancing system, those applying for a HSBC mortgage have three options when seeking a solicitor or licensed conveyancer. They can choose:

• A solicitor firm or licensed conveyancer on its managed panel;
• A CQS-accredited solicitor firm or licensed conveyancer who can act for the homebuyer and the lender; or
• A solicitor or licensed conveyancer who is able to act for the mortgagee but not HSBC, which would cost £295 including VAT in addition to the chosen firm’s fees.

The Sole Practitioners Group was 'delighted' with HSBC's announcement. Chair Kemi Mosaku said: 'Everyone should have access to independent legal advice from a solicitor of their choice and, of course, we welcome any initiative on the part of lenders which widens consumer choice.

'Obtaining CQS accreditation requires solicitors to have stringent procedures in place and the public and indeed banks can thus rest assured that they are getting advice from experts.'

Mosaku urged other lenders to follow suit by increasing mortgage lending limits in the same way.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Boost for sole practitioners as HSBC raises conveyancing threshold

Fixed costs for clinical negligence: the figures

The consultation on fixed costs sets out a number of options for calculating fees.

Rates will apply to claims allocated to the fast track and multi track and will be set out in the Civil Procedure Rules.

The consultation states: ‘We recognise that the level at which [fixed recoverable costs] rates are set will be key in ensuring that claimant lawyers can recover reasonable costs and are not deterred from taking on these low-value cases.’

Option 1:

Under this option, the recoverable amount would be fixed irrespective of settlement value and would depend on the stage at which the claim was settled.

Pre-issue: £3,000.

Post-issue/pre-allocation: Additional £3,900.

Post-allocation/pre-listing: Additional £5,650.

Post-listing: Additional £7,150.

There is also a £539 cap on the costs for an additional expert.

Option 2:

This option offers a lower fixed sum but an additional amount calculated as a percentage of the final damages awarded.

For example, if a claim was settled pre-issue for damages of £20,000, the claimant costs would be £3,500 – comprising the £1,500 base cost plus 10% of the settlement amount.

Option 3:

The flat fee rates used for option 1 are reduced in cases where the defendant has accepted liability within a defined period. The proposed reduction is 10%.

Option 4:

This proposal is based on the mean relationship between current costs and damages using data from costs lawyers who deal with claims against the NHS. It again suggests adding a percentage of the settled award as additional costs.

Illustrative rates are:

Pre-issue: £3,080 plus 19% of damages (capped at £7,830).

Post-issue/pre-allocation: £5,920 plus 34% of damages (capped at £14,420).

Post-allocation/pre-listing: £11,560 plus 38% of damages (capped at £21,000).

Post-listing: £10,320 plus 47% of damages (capped at £22,070).

In addition, the consultation seeks views on the concept of a single joint expert system. Expert witness costs would be set at a maximum of £1,200 for defendants and claimants alike for claims that settle.

Proposed trial costs that the court may award are as follows:

Damages less than £3,000: £485

Damages between £3,000 and £10,000: £690

Damages between £10,000 and £15,000: £1,035

For proceedings issued on or after 6 April 2009, with damages more than £15,000: £1,650.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fixed costs for clinical negligence: the figures

Tribunal refuses SRA’s ‘unnecessary’ hotel bill

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has refused a costs claim from the SRA for a hotel stay, prompting the regulator to seek clarification on expenses incurred for disciplinary hearings.

In a judgment this month, the tribunal said the SRA’s schedule of costs, at £16,273.50, was too high. A reduction must be made ‘not only for the time claimed for attending the hearing at seven hours, but also the time spent for preparation and consideration of documents which was excessive at 42 hours in total’.

The tribunal was also ‘not prepared to allow the cost of the applicant’s hotel accommodation, which it considered to be unnecessary’.

An SRA spokesperson said it is committed to keeping costs down and had accepted in that case they were too high. But it would seek clarity from the tribunal on whether hotel rooms can be claimed for, as overnight stays can be required to guarantee everyone gets to hearings on time.

However, SDT chief executive Susan Humble said it would not be appropriate to set a binding rule: ‘There will be cases where the SDT panels decide the SRA are not entitled to their hotel costs on a specific case. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.’

In 2017, the tribunal will provide more detailed reasoning in its judgments on why costs have been reduced or allowed, Humble added.

In the last six months, there have been at least two judgments where the tribunal has questioned the SRA’s ancillary expenses.

In one, the tribunal noted that the regulator had claimed ‘both for overnight accommodation in London and a train fare which appeared very high for the Birmingham to London return journey’.

The tribunal said: ‘The applicant should not be able to seek against a respondent both what appeared to be a peak-time rail fare and hotel costs; if staying overnight, one could travel at a lower cost.’

The SDT’s website states that hearings usually start at 10am.

The SRA spokesperson said hotel rooms are booked for overnight stays to make sure anyone who needs to attend a tribunal hearing – either to present the case or witnesses providing evidence – is present for the start of proceedings.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Tribunal refuses SRA’s ‘unnecessary’ hotel bill

Clin neg fixed costs plans unveiled as Hunt targets ‘unscrupulous’ firms

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt today finally announced the details of the fixed costs regime for clinical negligence cases.

After consulting in summer 2015 on the principle of fixed costs, the Department of Health said the scheme will be mandatory for all claims worth up to £25,000, to save the NHS in England £45m a year by 2020/21.

The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will also address wider issues affecting clinical negligence litigation, including the use of experts and Civil Procedure Rules.

Hunt said: ‘It’s important that when significant mistakes happen in the NHS, patients are able to have an open dialogue with a trust about what went wrong, receive reassurance of what is being learnt, and can discuss what form of recompense or redress may be appropriate. Legal action should only be part of this process.

‘Unfortunately, what we often see in lower cost claims is a deeply unfair system where unscrupulous law firms cream off excessive legal costs that dwarf the actual damages recovered. We believe this creates an adversarial culture of litigation, which is inflating insurance premiums and drawing away resource from the NHS at a crucial time.’

In the consultation, the government makes clear its plans to not affect the claimant’s entitlement to compensation or overall amount of damages awarded.

The document states that the cost of clinical negligence against the NHS in England rose from £1.2bn in 2014/15 to £1.5bn in 2015/16. In claims between £1,000 and £25,000, more than 60% of the total expenditure on clinical negligence in 2015/16 was recoverable claimant costs and 220% of the damages awarded.

The consultation puts forward a number of options for the level of fees: one proposal sets costs for claims at pre-issue at £3,000, rising to £7,150 for claims that are post-listing. Trial fees are in addition to the figures and a 10% reduction is proposed for early admission of liability.

Another method involves adding a percentage of damages to fees, with costs for claims post-listing restricted to a maximum of £22,070 where damages are £25,000.

Costs will receive a 12.5% weighting if the case is being run in London.

The issue of introducing recoverable fixed fees for medical negligence cases has been discussed for many years. Calls intensified after an increase in the number of these cases following restrictions on personal injury claims.

The government says costs for clinical negligence cases are excessive and can far exceed the value of the claims themselves.

Claimant lawyers say obstructive behaviour from defendants means costs escalate, and warn that meritorious claims will be impossible to run if fees are fixed.

There had been speculation in the last two years that the DoH would look at applying fixed costs to claims worth as much as £250,000. Minutes from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee meeting last July, revealed in October, suggested the threshold was being brought down to £25,000.

The consultation paper said following discussions with interested parties it was decided the upper limit should be set at the level currently applied in other categories of personal injury.

It is unclear how the clinical negligence cap would work alongside the fixed recoverable costs scheme being reviewed by Lord Justice Jackson. There are also questions about a forthcoming probe by the National Audit Office into how the NHS Litigation Authority runs cases.

Patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) has said the government is wrong to press ahead with plans without waiting to see the evidence or considering the implications.

AvMA chief executive Peter Walsh said proposals to restrict costs would ‘seriously harm access to justice and patient safety’.

‘We are deeply disappointed that, against our advice, the department has pressed ahead with these proposals without even waiting to learn about the impact of earlier reforms which are reducing costs; what the NAO has to say about the role of the NHSLA; or what Lord Justice Jackson’s review has to say about fixed costs,’ he said. 

‘We would never condone solicitors claiming over-the-top legal fees, but this is very rare and is already controlled by the courts.

‘The NHS Litigation Authority is also able to challenge costs where there is a case for doing so. In our experience, high costs are usually a result of the NHS not investigating incidents properly and dragging out claims with unreasonable denials of liability. However, it seems the department has taken no account at all of defendant behaviour unnecessary escalating costs.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Clin neg fixed costs plans unveiled as Hunt targets ‘unscrupulous’ firms

CMC complaints increase 39% in the space of a year

The number of complaints about claims management companies increased by almost 40% in the last year, the Legal Ombudsman has said.

The complaints service had 23,000 consumer contacts in the first year of regulating CMCs and 32,000 in the past 12 months. To date, the ombudsman has accepted 4,683 complaints for investigation.

The two main areas of complaints received relate to delays and a failure to refund upfront fees as agreed: these accounted around half of all complaints.

Complaints about delays included failures to issue claims within a reasonable timeframe and failing to update clients on the progress of their claims.

Kathryn Stone OBE, chief ombudsman, said the service had made a difference to hundreds of people’s lives over the past two years.

The ombudsman service said it had made an impact on the wider claims management industry and adopts a ‘tough but fair’ approach when trends are identified in a CMC’s conduct.

In August 2016, it published information in the public interest about JAS Financial Advisory Services after numerous complaints were made about failure to progress claims and to keep consumers updated.

JAS has since closed and the ombudsman said it has helped 500 customers, some of whom were able to claim a refund.

The ombudsman starting accepting complaints about CMCs in January 2015 after intervention from the government in an effort to ‘clean up’ the industry.

The service was expecting to handle an extra 9,000 complaints every year, most of which relating to payment protection insurance.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CMC complaints increase 39% in the space of a year

Clin neg fixed costs plans unveiled as Hunt goes after 'unscrupulous' firms

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt today finally announced the details of the fixed costs regime for clinical negligence cases.

After consulting in summer 2015 on the principle of fixed costs, the Department of Health is set to unveil information about how the scheme would work.

The DoH has confirmed it will consult on a cap for all cases worth up to £25,000, to save the NHS in England £45m a year. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will address wider issues affecting clinical negligence litigation.

Hunt said: 'It's important that when significant mistakes happen in the NHS, patients are able to have an open dialogue with a trust about what went wrong, receive reassurance of what is being learnt, and can discuss what form of recompense or redress may be appropriate. Legal action should only be part of this process.

'Unfortunately, what we often see in lower cost claims is a deeply unfair system where unscrupulous law firms cream off excessive legal costs that dwarf the actual damages recovered. We believe this creates an adversarial culture of litigation, which is inflating insurance premiums and drawing away resource from the NHS at a crucial time.'

The issue of introducing recoverable fixed fees for medical negligence cases has been discussed for many years. Calls intensified after an increase in the number of these cases following restrictions on personal injury claims.

The government says costs for clinical negligence cases are excessive and can far exceed the value of the claims themselves.

Claimant lawyers say obstructive behaviour from defendants means costs escalate, and warn that meritorious claims will be impossible to run if fees are fixed.

There had been speculation in the last two years that the DoH would look at applying fixed costs to claims worth as much as £250,000. Minutes from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee meeting last July, revealed in October, suggested the threshold was being brought down to £25,000.

It is unclear how the clinical negligence cap would work alongside the fixed recoverable costs scheme being reviewed by Lord Justice Jackson. There are also questions about a forthcoming probe by the National Audit Office into how the NHS Litigation Authority runs cases.

Patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) has said the government is wrong to press ahead with plans without waiting to see the evidence or considering the implications.

AvMA chief executive Peter Walsh said proposals to restrict costs would ‘seriously harm access to justice and patient safety’.

‘We are deeply disappointed that, against our advice, the department has pressed ahead with these proposals without even waiting to learn about the impact of earlier reforms which are reducing costs; what the NAO has to say about the role of the NHSLA; or what Lord Justice Jackson’s review has to say about fixed costs,’ he said. 

‘We would never condone solicitors claiming over-the-top legal fees, but this is very rare and is already controlled by the courts.

‘The NHS Litigation Authority is also able to challenge costs where there is a case for doing so. In our experience, high costs are usually a result of the NHS not investigating incidents properly and dragging out claims with unreasonable denials of liability. However, it seems the department has taken no account at all of defendant behaviour unnecessary escalating costs.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Clin neg fixed costs plans unveiled as Hunt goes after 'unscrupulous' firms

Clin neg fixed costs consultation to be unveiled today

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt appears today set to finally announce the details of the fixed costs regime for clinical negligence cases.

After consulting in summer 2015 on the principle of fixed costs, the Department of Health is set to unveil information about how the scheme would work.

The DoH has confirmed it will consult on a cap for all cases worth up to £25,000, to save the NHS in England £45m a year. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will address wider issues affecting clinical negligence litigation.

Hunt said: 'It's important that when significant mistakes happen in the NHS, patients are able to have an open dialogue with a trust about what went wrong, receive reassurance of what is being learnt, and can discuss what form of recompense or redress may be appropriate. Legal action should only be part of this process.

'Unfortunately, what we often see in lower cost claims is a deeply unfair system where unscrupulous law firms cream off excessive legal costs that dwarf the actual damages recovered. We believe this creates an adversarial culture of litigation, which is inflating insurance premiums and drawing away resource from the NHS at a crucial time.'

The issue of introducing recoverable fixed fees for medical negligence cases has been discussed for many years. Calls intensified after an increase in the number of these cases following restrictions on personal injury claims.

The government says costs for clinical negligence cases are excessive and can far exceed the value of the claims themselves.

Claimant lawyers say obstructive behaviour from defendants means costs escalate, and warn that meritorious claims will be impossible to run if fees are fixed.

There had been speculation in the last two years that the DoH would look at applying fixed costs to claims worth as much as £250,000. Minutes from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee meeting last July, revealed in October, suggested the threshold was being brought down to £25,000.

It is unclear how the clinical negligence cap would work alongside the fixed recoverable costs scheme being reviewed by Lord Justice Jackson. There are also questions about a forthcoming probe by the National Audit Office into how the NHS Litigation Authority runs cases.

Patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) has said the government is wrong to press ahead with plans without waiting to see the evidence or considering the implications.

AvMA chief executive Peter Walsh said proposals to restrict costs would ‘seriously harm access to justice and patient safety’.

‘We are deeply disappointed that, against our advice, the department has pressed ahead with these proposals without even waiting to learn about the impact of earlier reforms which are reducing costs; what the NAO has to say about the role of the NHSLA; or what Lord Justice Jackson’s review has to say about fixed costs,’ he said. 

‘We would never condone solicitors claiming over-the-top legal fees, but this is very rare and is already controlled by the courts.

‘The NHS Litigation Authority is also able to challenge costs where there is a case for doing so. In our experience, high costs are usually a result of the NHS not investigating incidents properly and dragging out claims with unreasonable denials of liability. However, it seems the department has taken no account at all of defendant behaviour unnecessary escalating costs.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Clin neg fixed costs consultation to be unveiled today

Firm’s innovation puts clients together with sports stars

A virtual 'dating' site is putting small businesses in touch with famous sports people – and it’s been made possible by a law firm.

Manchester practice JMW Solicitors has signed up 150 stars to use its Barn Door UK platform where they can endorse, promote or invest in entrepreneurs who have signed up their business. The individuals include Premier League footballers and Olympic gold medallists.

The idea was the brainchild of partner Marc Yaffe, who set up the secure service last year to put parties with mutual needs in touch with each other.

‘We found entrepreneurs in the early stage of growth encounter problems of funding and brand awareness,’ said Yaffe. How do they get their brand heard when the costs of Google promotion or being sponsored on social media are so high?

‘Equally, when sports stars retire they can end up with debt, drink [problems], divorce and depression. They lose the network of advisers and agents but they still have high profiles and are instantly recognisable. The idea was to connect them with businesses so they have a succession plan for life beyond sport.’

With more than 50 businesses, including in the health, nutrition and sports sectors, signed up to the platform, the website has already facilitated a number of connections, endorsements and investments. Later this month, former Manchester United winger Quinton Fortune will put his name and brand into one football coaching business which will be scaled out across the UK.

The service is confidential, free to use and run by JMW. All parties are encouraged to seek out their own due diligence and professional advice, particularly if monetary investments are being made.

The full-service firm itself hopes to benefit through bringing in other commercial legal work from the businesses or private client work from the sports stars, such as conveyancing, matrimonial matters or wills and trusts work.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Firm’s innovation puts clients together with sports stars

Mishcon’s £1m ID fraud bill sounds alarm bells

Conveyancing solicitors have been put on high alert by a judgment ordering a firm that fell victim to identity fraud to pay more than £1m.

City firm Mishcon de Reya was found to be liable for breach of trust after its client was duped into buying a London property from a tenant posing as the owner.

The claim was based on an alleged failure by the firm to seek an undertaking from the purported seller’s solicitors that it had taken reasonable steps to establish its client’s identity. A claim for negligence against Mishcon, as well as all claims against the buyer’s solicitors, failed.

The Gazette understands permission to appeal has been sought, but the ruling’s effects will set off alarm bells among firms worried about falling victim to an increasingly common scam in which rogue tenants pose as owners to sell a property. The buyer is left with a mortgage for a property they have no right to and may seek to recover losses from professionals involved in the transaction.

In the case involving Mishcon de Reya, deputy High Court judge David Railton QC accepted the firms involved had acted honestly and innocently in carrying out their respective roles.

Railton said Mishcon de Reya had insurance to cover the loss suffered in full, and was in a better position than the client to face the consequences. The judge added the ‘only practical remedy’ open to the client was to target the City firm.

Last year the High Court ruled that conveyancers on both sides of a transaction were liable for a rogue seller who committed a £470,000 fraud. His Honour Judge Pelling said that Windsor firm A’Court & Co made no serious attempt to comply with anti-money laundering regulations to prevent the fraud, and, critically, obtained no documentation linking the seller to the property.

Pelling also ruled that the buyer’s conveyancer, north-west London firm House Owners Conveyancers Limited, was responsible for not drawing attention to any concerns after asking whether the purported owner was entitled to sell the property.

Lawyers will now watch the Court of Appeal with interest as a similar case (P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP & Anor) is heard later this year. The buyer last year failed in claims for breach of warranty of authority and negligence against its solicitors and estate agent.

Niall Innes, a partner at national firm Mills & Reeve representing the estate agent in the P&P case, said there is an urgent need for clarity. ‘I have five cases on my desk around this area. It is a really big area and growing,’ Innes told the Gazette. ‘The courts are stuck in a position where the seller’s estate agent and solicitor, and the buyer’s solicitor, have done all they can.

‘There has to be a solution to recognise the purchasers have done nothing wrong, with a window to recover. There needs to be an insurance solution but I suspect that few insurers will be interested as they are not confident they can persuade the general public to protect against identity fraud loss.’

The Land Registry advises homeowners, especially absent landlords, to sign up to its Property Alert Service which sends out free notifications if certain activity occurs on a registered property.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Mishcon’s £1m ID fraud bill sounds alarm bells

Brexit: mutual recognition hope for lawyers

The ‘genuinely mutual benefits’ of professional recognition mean that UK lawyers can expect a continuation of their right to practise in EU jurisdictions post-Brexit, a former senior trade minister has said.

Lord Maude of Horsham, minister of state for trade and investment in David Cameron’s government, told a press briefing it would be ‘very surprising if mutual recognition arrangements’ could not be sorted out relatively easily.

Maude, now a senior adviser at US firm Covington, was also a government minister from 1987-1992 and had a direct role in the design of Directive 89/48/EEC on which subsequent professional recognition regulations were based.

Continuation was likely, Maude said, because the ‘benefits on both sides’ were now well-established.

Sweden’s former prime minister Carl Bildt, another senior adviser at the firm, identified ‘justice’ as an area where early agreement between the EU and UK can be reached.

Bildt warned, however, that while the UK government expected Article 50 and interim arrangements could happen ‘in parallel’, the EU negotiating team did not match that expectation. ‘Their mandate is just a divorce mandate,’ he noted.

Jonathan Goldsmith, former secretary-general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), commented: ‘The lawyers’ directives are not standalone but depend on what will happen on mutual recognition and the single market overall. If we are out of the single market without exceptions, and have to return to WTO rules, then there are big problems.’

Mickael Laurans, head of the Law Society’s Brussels office, said the qualified lawyers transfer scheme would mean continued recognition for EU lawyers in England and Wales, but noted reciprocal agreement for solicitors and barristers post-Brexit ‘would depend on the goodwill’ of the EU’s 27 member states. Securing recognition was a ‘key objective’ of Chancery Lane.

Philip Buisseret, current secretary-general of the CCBE, said: ‘We hope the current model can be used to build something constructive in the future and regardless of the deal that eventually is negotiated.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: mutual recognition hope for lawyers

Heald summoned to explain Brexit effect on civil justice

Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald will be asked next week to set out how the government’s plans for Brexit will affect civil justice. Heald will be questioned at the final evidence session of the EU justice sub committee’s inquiry into the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union.

The committee seeks answers on how the UK will maintain civil justice cooperation without the oversight of the Court of Justice of the EU.

It will also examine the importance of the Brussels regime of regulations to the operation of the UK-EU legal system, asking which aspects of the current regime would be the biggest loss.

Heald, due to appear on Tuesday, will have to explain if common law will be an adequate replacement for the Brussels regime, and whether current rules will be incorporated in the vaunted Great Repeal Bill.

The minister will also clarify what alternatives exist to the Court of Justice of the EU and how the UK will cooperate with remaining EU member states.

During justice questions in the House of Commons earlier this week, justice secretary Liz Truss outlined her determination to use opportunities presented by Brexit to enhance the UK legal services sector.

‘My department is leading the work on future co-operation with the EU on civil, commercial and family law and, together with the Home Office, on criminal justice,’ she said.

‘This is a vital issue for our fantastic legal services profession—four of the top 10 international law firms are headed in the UK. I said this week at a joint meeting with the Lord Chief Justice and members of the legal profession that mutual enforcement of judgments will be a key part of our Brexit negotiations. ‘

Meanwhile, there is speculation in the media that prime minister Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights. The Telegraph says plans for the bill have been shelved, and could be dumped altogether if it is considered Brexit has significantly strengthened the sovereignty of UK courts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Heald summoned to explain Brexit effect on civil justice

More men calling lawyers’ helpline

More men in the legal profession are reaching out for pastoral support from the LawCare helpline, with stress and depression among the top concerns, according to statistics published today.

LawCare reported an 8.6% rise in the proportion of men using the service in 2016. Women still made up the majority of people turning to the service, accounting for 62% of callers. The proportion of calls from men went up from 35% in 2015 to 38% this year.

LawCare said the largest share of callers (38%) cited stress as their main concern while 12% said they were depressed.

Other reasons for calling were bullying/harassment (7%); financial problems (6%), as well as alcohol-related issues and ethical problems.

Elizabeth Rimmer, chief executive of LawCare, said: ‘We are not surprised that stress is still the number one reason for calls: this can be work-related, or due to personal issues.

‘We want to encourage people in the legal profession to talk about their mental health and wellbeing, so we can tackle the stigma associated with it, particularly in the workplace,’ she added.

LawCare is a charity that promotes and supports good mental health and wellbeing across the legal community in the UK and Ireland. Its helpline is open 365 days a year: 0800 279 6888

Let's block ads! (Why?)

More men calling lawyers’ helpline

EU regulations fuel demand for in-house lawyers

The threat of greater financial penalties as a result of forthcoming data protection reforms have contributed to an overall surge in demand for in-house lawyers over the past two years, according to latest sector research.

A report published by data publisher VacancySoft and legal recruiter Laurence Simons shows that various EU regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force next year, and US law, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, have led vacancies in Europe to steadily rise since December 2014.

In June last year, vacancy figures were 146% higher than what was reported in December 2014. The number of vacancies in November last year was 20% higher than the 24-monthly average.

The ‘lion’s share’ of demand comes has come from financial services, with 795 vacancies last year. In the financial services sector, commercial banking was responsible for more than half of demand. The report states that if commercial banking were to be a sector in its own right, it would be the second-largest sector in Europe.

Following the EU referendum vote in June last year, vacancies in France and Ireland are ‘trending’ at a faster rate than the UK. 'The Brexit vote has led to predictions that financial services firms will look to relocate from London if an agreement cannot be made with regard to passporting arrangements,’ the report says.

Demand for data privacy specialists accounts for the majority of in-house demand in the financial services, healthcare, and consumer goods and services sectors. Nearly a quarter of increased demand in the TMT (technology, media and telecoms) sector was for data privacy lawyers.

The report attributes the growing appetite for data privacy specialists to the GDPR, which comes into force in May 2018. Companies that breach the regulations face penalties of up to 5% of worldwide turnover. 'Given such vast possible fines, it’s no surprise data privacy is attracting so much attention currently,’ the report says.

In life sciences, the report suggests a noticeable spike in demand can be attributed to proposals to amend the EU’s Medical Device Regulations and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulations, which were announced in May last year and published the following month.

The majority of growth in vacancies were for senior in-house posts. Firms with a larger headcount (more than 5,000 people) accounted for at least eight in 10 of all advertised vacancies in the 12 months ending in November 2016 – an 80% increase on the previous 12 months.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

EU regulations fuel demand for in-house lawyers

Barristers warned over social media conduct

The Bar Standards Board should update its social media policy amid concern about barristers’ conduct online, the regulator’s independent observer has suggested. 

In her final report to the regulator, former banker Isobel Leaviss said the BSB’s current policy, which surrounds ‘media comment’, should be updated. Leaviss has been working with the BSB for the last five years observing its day-to-day workings and its policy guidelines.

She told the BSB’s board meeting yesterday that she had seen no real cause for concern in its governance and that its system was operating within its aims and objectives.

However Leaviss said barristers themselves should be wary in their use of social media following a ‘number of complaints’ and that the BSB should look at updating its guidelines.

Currently, the BSB’s social media policy falls within its ‘media comment’ policy and allows barristers to use social media provided they are not impacting cases or clients.

It adds that barristers must not behave in a way that is likely to diminish their independence or the public’s trust in the profession.

In October last year, the Gazette reported that barrister Ian Millard had been disbarred for posting ‘seriously offensive’ tweets that targeted Jews, quoted Hitler and criticised Muslims and black people.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Barristers warned over social media conduct

Judge condemns ‘self-defeating’ mass of evidence in Shell pollution claim

In a setback for attempts to hold multinational companies responsible for the behaviour of their subsidiaries, the High Court has ruled that group actions against oil giant Shell over pollution in Nigeria cannot proceed in London.

In His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, Mr Justice Fraser, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court, also criticises as ‘self defeating’ the mass of evidence brought by the claimants.

London firm Leigh Day, which brought the action on behalf of 40,000 Nigerians, said it would appeal.

The action involves a claim for compensation from Royal Dutch Shell and a local subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, for pollution caused by spills from pipelines in the Niger Delta.

The claimants argue that ‘Royal Dutch Shell exercises significant direction and control over its Nigerian subsidiary and was, therefore, liable for its systematic pollution’. The defendants argue that the pollution was caused by illegal tapping and refining, activities in which at least some of the affected people must be complicit.

In judgment, Fraser said that claims against Royal Dutch Shell as ‘anchor defendant’ must fail as the Netherlands-headquartered holding company had no duty of care for acts and/or omissions of the operating subsidiary in Nigeria. The correct forum for actions against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria was the local court system, where conditional fee agreements are available, he said.

‘There is simply no connection whatsoever between this jurisdiction and the claims brought by the claimants, who are Nigerian citizens, for breaches of statutory duty and/or in common law for acts and omissions in Nigeria, by a Nigerian company,’ he said.

The judgment said that any claim based on the inadequacies of the Nigerian justice system would lead the court into making ‘damaging colonialist judgments based on inappropriate comparisons between one judicial system and another’.

Fraser noted that both parties ‘occupy firmly entrenched battle lines and are bitterly opposed to one another’s evidence and arguments’ and criticised the way they handled the case. ‘The current approach of parties in litigation such as this is wholly self-defeating, and contrary to cost-efficient conduct of litigation. This case is an ideal example of one with “masses of documents, long witness statements, detailed analysis of the issues, and long argument” being deployed on both sides.’

Such an approach is ‘diametrically opposed’ to that required under the Civil Procedure Rules, he said, raising the possibility of limiting the number and size of witness statements that can be lodged. ‘Experienced legal advisers ought not to need such strictures in order to concentrate their minds. However, a fundamental change of approach is required by the parties in cases such as these for applications of this nature.’

The judgment quotes the defendants’ estimate that the claim comprised 450 pages of evidence with almost 6,000 pages of exhibits in 22 files. This included a US diplomatic cable dating from 2006 disclosed by Wikileaks: the judge said ‘nothing in that cable advances the claimants’ case... in any appreciable respect’.

Announcing its intention to appeal, Leigh Day said that the judgment had been made at an early stage in the litigation, before any documents were disclosed and without hearing oral evidence from witnesses about the relationship between Royal Dutch Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary.

Leigh Day partner Daniel Leader said: ‘It is our view that the judgment failed to consider critical evidence which shows the decisive direction and control Royal Dutch Shell exercises over its Nigerian subsidiary. It is also inconsistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Justice and the Dutch Court of Appeal.’

Richard Hermer QC, Marie Louise Kinsler and Edward Craven (instructed by Leigh Day) acted for the claimants.

Lord Goldsmith PC QC and Sophie Lamb (instructed by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) acted for the defendants.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Judge condemns ‘self-defeating’ mass of evidence in Shell pollution claim

Former solicitor judge and ex-lover jailed for six years for theft

A former judge and solicitor and his ex-lover have been jailed for six years after being found guilty of stealing more than £600,000 of client cash from a law firm they set up.

Simon Kenny, a former district judge in Sussex, and his partner at the time Emma Coates, a legal executive, plundered £692,000 worth of customers’ funds at a solicitors firm in West Sussex over four years.

Southwark Crown Court heard that 60-year-old Kenny used funds to ensure the running of the firm while Coates, 47, used the cash to fund her lavish lifestyle — including a £27,000 trip to Barbados for her and her friends and expense-laden days at Cheltenham Festival.

She also paid off four mortgages, spent £15,000 on a log cabin and hot tub, and bought a Range Rover.

The pair were originally due to be sentenced for stealing in excess of £900,000 from client accounts but £200,000 was wiped off that figure following a discrepancy.

The court heard that an associate of Kenny, George White, had loaned the firm £200,000 — it was paid into a client account but it was not client money.

Sentencing the pair, His Honour Judge Peter Testar said he could base the case only on money that belonged to clients. Abusing client accounts was a ‘serious breach of trust’ and would damage trust in the solicitors profession, he said. 

The court also heard that Kenny had told his accountant Robert Foskett, who had noticed a shortfall when doing the accounts, that he had moved clients’ money offshore to avoid repercussions from the Northern Rock banking crisis.

Foskett, apparently unable to deal with the grief of discovering the fraud and that he had been lied to, took his own life in 2011.

Testar said that although Kenny was the sole owner of CK firm, he and Coates were 'to all intents and purposes joint owners’. CK Solicitors, which has no connection with the firm of the same name in Leyton, East London, was closed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2012.

Although Kenny did not use funds for his personal life he was complicit in allowing Coates to do so. Testar said Coates had an instinct for 'excess and extravagance’ and saw the cash as ‘there for the taking’.

A third defendant, 60-year-old Stephen Hiseman, a fee-earner at the former CK Solicitors, was also found guilty of two counts of fraud. His sentencing was adjourned.

The trio were charged by police in April 2014, after detectives from the Sussex Police major fraud unit began investigating the firm over the alleged disappearance of around £900,000 from client accounts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Former solicitor judge and ex-lover jailed for six years for theft