Dentons faces $3.5m professional negligence claim in DIFC courts By Margaret Taylor 27 October 2011 16:25 17 December 2015 14:17 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 Barry Wood 27 October 2011 at 17:15 Christmas to be cancelled ? Reply Link Anonymous 27 October 2011 at 20:56 That story merits a headline and potentially destroying that associate’s reputation over an as yet unproven allegation? Is The Lawyer now bringing a bit of tabloid lack of discretion and taste to the world of legal news? Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 10:23 I completely agree with Anonylus @ 8.56am above…the individual in question wasn’t even a partner at the time. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 11:06 Agreed. Just how exactly does naming the associate involved (who, as the above poster pointed out, is likely to have been supervised in some capacity on this) add to the story? Pretty shameful stuff. Reply Link Asim Al Raisi 28 October 2011 at 12:06 I agree with the above that the associates name should be removed. That said It is good to see when large law firms are bought to account for thier mistakes. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 12:51 If the associate was named in the claim form then why wouldn’t The Lawyer publish his name? One might even suggest it has a duty to report his name as being in the public interest. Lawyers might find it hard to believe, but reporting has to be objective to serve the purposes of everyone. This is law in the Middle East, if you can’t take the heat stand away from the fire. Why all the fuss – national press name criminal suspects all the time without being held to account. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 12:57 It would seem from a quick search of the Law Society’s website that the named assciate qualified in 2009 and so was actually a trainee at the time. Could someone at TheLawyer.com look into this urgently and remove the poor man’s name from the article f this is true. There must be a partner who supervised this matter who can be named if necessary. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 13:01 Anonymous 28/10/11 @ 12:51: If “reporting has to be objective to serve the purposes of everyone” (which must be correct as a statement of general principle) then the report ought to say whether the associate was supervised in carrying out work for this client. That nothing is said about this raises the suspicion (but no more than that) that this obvious – and important – fact may have been overlooked in the reporting of this story (or any briefing on the claim now brought, by whichever side). Reply Link Anon 28 October 2011 at 13:21 Just because someone qualified as an English solicitor in 2009 does not necessarily mean they were a trainee immediately prior to that. They could, for example, have been a lawyer originally qualified in another jurisdiction and practising for a number of years before taking the QLTT…. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 13:33 I live in Dubai and heard about the case. I believe the partner in charge was MIchael Kerr. Its been in the press in Dubai and you can see it on the DIFC courts website Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 15:36 Anonymous | 28-Oct-2011 1:01 pm: Having seen the claim form the associate is the only person named and whether or not he has been supervised isn’t mentioned. This story is very close to the facts. Surely it would be unfair to name a supervising partner whose name isn’t mentioned in the claim? Whether or not a mistake was made is not to be decided by me, you or The Lawyer, but the courts and as the claim doesn’t name any partner I doubt any judge will when resolving the issue. It will settle though, they always do. Reply Link Anonymous 28 October 2011 at 17:09 Anonymous | 28-Oct-2011 3:36 pm: If that’s what the claim form says then fair enough and The Lawyer has not made a mistake in terms of reporting what the claim form says, whether obvious or not. I haven’t seen the claim form myself, which is why I was careful to say that only a suspicion of a mistake in the reporting was raised. However, I disagree (I think) that it would necessarily be unfair to name a supervising partner whose name wasn’t mentioned in the claim: for my part, I would hope (but I am an optimist) that any decent legal journalist reporting on the claim would do so (or at the very least observe that the name of the supervising partner is not mentioned in the claim form), not least because a legal reporter ought to know that an associate does not (as a general rule) handle matters unsupervised, but also because – whatever the claim form says – it is such an important and plainly relevant fact. But of course this is a very different point that raises the question of what “proper” reporting of a dispute might involve and one on which opinions may well differ. Best, Anonymous | 28-Oct-2011 1:01 pm. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.