Clydes set to appeal as EAT whistleblowing case goes in ex-partner’s favour By Margaret Taylor 14 May 2012 16:43 17 December 2015 13:07 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Gladiatrix 15 May 2012 at 18:08 Clydes Wherever she was based this was clearly not your finest moment, pay up, apologise and reprimand the idiots who got you into this mess. Reply Link Anonymous 15 May 2012 at 18:13 If these allegations are true they raise very serious matters that the SRA will need to look into and those – if any – found not to have protected the source should face criminal charges and conduct charges. Post Bribery Act this is very serious and one hopes that there has been no cover up. Reply Link Anonymous 16 May 2012 at 09:42 Trying to dance around legalities when the facts are that Clyde fired a pregnant partner who blew the whistle on bribery and corruption? The SRA should nail them, the SFO should go after them and those who participated should be held accountable. How does this happen in this day and age? It appears Clyde’s reputation as a female-UNfriendly place may well be justified. And interesting that Clyde’s next African destination is Zimbabwe, of all places. Is there a pattern here? Law firms should hold a higher standard. Reply Link Lawyer (New Delhi) 17 May 2012 at 15:57 What message does this send out to our profession? Perhaps that, if you are female and foreign, your career just does not matter, not compared to maintaining a relationship with a foreign (albeit allegedly corrupt) law firm. Aside from unfairness to Ms Bates van Winkelhof, this approach is incredibly short sighted. Whilst firms like Clydes/BLG have lofty ambitions when it comes to expanding abroad, who is going to do business with them abroad when they treat (foreign) lawyers like this? Reply Link Anonymous 17 May 2012 at 16:02 Clydes are not going to be able to appeal their way out of this one: pointless trying. Reply Link Anonymous 17 May 2012 at 17:03 Mishcon and the QC acting pro bono is a real statement of conviction in Ms Bates van Winkelhof and how she was treated. Given lawyers general reluctance to act for free, it must be a pretty appalling case. A pointless appeal (as the previous reader commented) smacks of vexatious litigation and further persecution. They should do the right thing, apologise, settle up and put in place proper procedures for dealing with whistle blowing. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 10:52 I am alarmed by the reporting of and commentary on this matter, including The Lawyer’s email daily update content the other day. My understanding is that the bribery allegations are as yet unproven? Spare a thought for the potentially innocent individual whose reputation is currently being dragged through the mud. And no, I don’t work for Clydes (or AKO Law)! Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 14:43 Mmmm .. I wonder if there’s more to this than meets the eye – excitable allegations (and noticeably one-sided comments) but case yet untested. I wonder what Clydes knows? Guess it will all come out in the wash in June. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 16:24 The fact that Clydes are trying so desperately to keep theclaim out of the Courts speaks volumes (whether the bribary allegations have yet been tested or not). They seem to be showing remarkably poor judgment, and the bravado re an appeal is extraordinary given the narrow basis on which they are contending Ms BvW does not have the protection of the LLP Agreement they entered into with her. Their existing/prospective partners should take note. Reply Link Anonymous 26 May 2012 at 14:14 Lawyer Delhi of May 17 – leave BLG out of this; nothing to do with thems and we wish Miss BvW her right to a fair hearing Reply Link Anonymous 2 June 2012 at 15:21 I used to work for Clydes and there are 2 people (they’re just the ones I know of) suing for unfair dismissal in the UAE. Very shady firm, very shady morals. Reply Link Anonymous 7 June 2012 at 16:54 “leave BLG out of this; nothing to do with them” ? Mmn, you are all the same firm now! Reply Link Anonymous 7 June 2012 at 17:11 “Anonymous | 26-May-2012 2:14 pm, Lawyer Delhi of May 17 – leave BLG out of this; nothing to do with thems and we wish Miss BvW her right to a fair hearing”. Just to remind you that there is no BLG post 01/11/11! (although, in your head, it seems you still think you exist). Therapy perhaps? Reply Link Anonymous 7 June 2012 at 20:36 What do you mean “leave BLG out of this”: they do not exist, not since last year. Reply Link Anonymous 8 June 2012 at 13:32 Would be interested to know who is acting for those suing Clydes, anyone know? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.