The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report is the only ranking of international law firms by litigation and arbitration revenue and is essential reading for anyone seeking to benchmark their litigation and dispute resolution practices...
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Mark Robert Westwood, 36, admitted 1985, practising at material times with Dell Hove, fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,196 costs. Allegations substantiated he failed to carry out client instructions with due diligence, failed to keep client properly informed, failed to comply with reasonable requests from client for information concerning client’s affairs, failed to comply with assurances given to Solicitors Complaints Bureau in connection with matter under investigation, failed to reply promptly or at all to correspondence from a client and from the bureau, and practised in breach of a condition to which his practising certificate was subject. Tribunal said overall picture was one of unsatisfactory behaviour on the part of a solicitor and it was not clear to it that Westwood fully recognised the error of his ways or felt contrition.
David Arthur Heath, 44, admitted 1984, practising in the partnership of Arora Lodhi Heath, Acton, London, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £965 costs. Allegations substantiated he was guilty of delay in conduct of professional business, failed to comply with direction of Law Society Adjudication and Appeals Committee, and failed to reply to letters from Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Heath previously before Tribunal in 1995 when he was fined £1,000 in respect of similar allegations. Tribunal made it plain Heath was unlikely to be dealt with leniently should he come before it again.
Sarah Elizabeth Curran, 34, admitted 1988, practising in partnership with Ellis Folkestone, Kent, struck off and ordered to pay £655 costs. Allegations substantiated she used client funds for her own purposes and those of other clients, wrongly drew client money, misappropriated client and partnership funds, and misled clients. Tribunal said it noted the stresses and strains to which Curran had been subjected, but considered its duty to the public and the profession left no room for a decision other than that she should be struck off.