Dentons faces $3.5m professional negligence claim in DIFC courts

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • Christmas to be cancelled ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I completely agree with Anonylus @ 8.56am above...the individual in question wasn't even a partner at the time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (12)