Acumen+giving+you+the+edge
Categories:Family,Litigation / Dispute Resolution

Shackleton faces negligence claim from former client

26 March 2012 | By Sam Chadderton

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Related Articles

Related Firms

Payne Hicks Beach is being sued by a client who claims a mistake by Britain’s highest-profile divorce lawyer Fiona Shackleton cost him £250,000.

According to papers filed at the High Court, banker Christopher Smith paid Baroness Shackleton, a partner at the firm, more than £95,000 for legal advice regarding his obligation to pay child support.

Smith, who is represented in the claim by Rosenblatt Solicitors assistant Simon Walton, said that Baroness Shackleton is considered a “leading expert in her field” and he was “entitled to expect the highest standards of skill and care”, according to the High Court claim.

Smith instructed Payne Hicks Beach prior to the birth of his child, who is now 16-months old, to negotiate Child Support Agency (CSA) payments after he split with his partner, art collector Rachel Verghis.

A deal to pay Verghis £7,000 a month in maintenance for their son Louis as well as money for rent was struck, according to the claim. Smith alleges that when he took his business to rival family law firm Levison Meltzer Pigott, he was told that a CSA assessment would have made him pay just £658 a month - £8,000 a year.

Shackleton has acted for a number of high-profile clients, including former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney on his divorce from Heather Mills (28 August 2008) and singer Madonna on her divorce from film-director husband Guy Ritchie (17 October 2008).

Smith was advised by her between May 2010 and June 2010, over his rights and responsibilities towards the child he was expecting with Ms Verghis in December 2010.

Smith claims that Shackleton was “negligent” and alleges that if he had been “correctly” advised, he would not have agreed to the order. He alleges to have lost out on £264,351.80, which includes the £95,700 he paid Payne Hicks Beach.

Payne Hicks Beach managing partner Peter Black said: “We owe a duty of confidentiality to our clients and we’re unable to comment on any specific cases. All that I can tell you is that this claim will be defended.”

Walton at Rosenblatts has yet to instruct counsel.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (14)

  • Life's a Beach | 26-Mar-2012 11:39 am

    Wheelin' out the big guns

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 26-Mar-2012 12:28 pm

    I don't wish to be personal, however he sounds like a lovely chap, wanting to make sure his child lives in the same way it would have if he and his mother were still together.... though I am fairly sure it is entirely £7,000 a month to bring up a child is entirely unnecessary.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great Gatsby | 26-Mar-2012 12:57 pm

    The nation's dim view of bankers has been forever reversed by this article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 26-Mar-2012 1:17 pm

    These people are idiots.

    http://www.csacalculator.dsdni.gov.uk/calc.asp

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More than you need | 26-Mar-2012 2:19 pm

    Blimey. That was a generous deal for mum and baby. £84000 a year plus rent on top. How long is Smith obliged to pay this for ? Surely over more than 3 years, if payments have to continue on the agreed basis, the damage to Smith is a lot more than £264, 351. I'm imagining that to achieve such a massive settlement, mum has given up a very lucrative career in the art world ? Or has she ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Greater Gatsby | 26-Mar-2012 2:27 pm

    £7,000 per month, hat would only just cover the childcare costs in London and don't forget they will not get Child Benefit.
    What I cannot get over is the £95k fee. You can buy quite a few chairs for that!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More than you need | 26-Mar-2012 2:45 pm

    Greater Gatsby....what planet are you living on ? You can get childcare in London for less tha £7000 a month. You're telling me that child carers are on £84,000 a year in London ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Rural Bliss | 26-Mar-2012 2:54 pm

    How on God's earth did she justify a charge of £95k for advice on child support?
    It looks like she's been up to her old tricks again - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044047/Paul-McCartney-Madonna-divorce-lawyer-Fiona-Shackleton-marked-bills.html
    Does the woman's greed know no limits?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 26-Mar-2012 2:56 pm

    If there has been negligent advice it is only fair that those culpable face the consequences. It would be illogical to infer character assessments of Mr Smith, or his suitability as a father, based on this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 26-Mar-2012 4:06 pm

    No doubt the advice was given in the light of a potential Schedule 1 Children Act claim. He appears to be able to afford £7000 but the CSA assessed at £600 odd because he pays himself a low salary, taking the rest of his cash in dividend for consultancy fees (guessing...)the CSA only assessments are still fairly blunt instruments and Schedule 1 claims are used to top up the CSA assessments...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Related Briefings

View All Related Briefings

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed