DLA Piper faces regional revolt over LawVest investments
The growing row over private investments made by partners at DLA Piper, exclusively revealed by The Lawyer, shows no sign of dying down, with angry questions asked during a conference call held yesterday with regional partners to discuss the matter.
Nigel Knowles
As The Lawyer reported this week, the firm had called a board meeting on Tuesday after partners expressed their outrage over personal investments made in alternative business structure LawVest by a small group including co-chief executive Sir Nigel Knowles. The partners did not declarethose investments to the firm’s board or the wider partnership (27 February 2012).
The issue stepped up yesterday with the circulation of an internal note by the board followed by a conference call with regional partners to discuss the issue.
The note said that the board was satisfied that every partner who had invested inLawVest, including Knowles, did so in good faith. It also said that every partner who had invested, again including Knowles, had agreed to divest him or herself of that investment.
Tony Angel
During the subsequent call, which is understood to have been hosted by co-global chairman Tony Angel and from which London-based partners were specifically excluded, one partner asked to know the identities of all of the partners that had invested.
Angel is understood not to have responded. At that point a partner asked how, if the board did not have that information, it could be confident that the investments were made in good faith.
Angel’s response to this question is not known. Neither he nor the firm responded to additional questions on this issue put by The Lawyer or to requests for a comment on this article.
The Lawyer understands a meeting will be held today in the firm’s City offices to discuss the issue with London-based partners.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (29)
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 12:22 pm
hubris gets them all in the end
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Hill | 1-Mar-2012 12:24 pm
Good faith as defined by the board. The names of the 'others' are likely known, but TA & the board may prefer not to disclose them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 1-Mar-2012 12:29 pm
Investments in good faith that they would a tidy profit, not in good faith to their non-investing fellow DLA partners. Get DLA to divert some of its business to LawVest then share the profit from doing so between a limited number of partners. No conflict of interest there at all oh no no..... what planet is he on?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Retirement ahoy!! | 1-Mar-2012 1:19 pm
All animals are equal.....but some are more equal than others!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 3:49 pm
What a cheap, tawdry affair.
And it’s not as if DLA has any reserves of prestige to see them through. They are already in bargain basement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 5:33 pm
This may turn out to be a savvy investment by DLA yet, time will tell. In a firm this size there are bound to be disgruntled partners. DLA has also been a forward looking firm, it's obviously a little too much for some!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 5:37 pm
Who knew The Lawyer was on DLA's board or a member of its partnership?
It seems the situation could have been handled better but the decision to divest shows a willing to rectify unintended hard feelings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 5:43 pm
LawVest - an awful awful name.
I'm fully expecting Roll On Friday to run this story with Sir Nigel pictured in his law vest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 5:53 pm
There have always been rumoured to be other "investments" too. Wonder if those are finally coming to light?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Mar-2012 6:11 pm
If, as seems to be the case, DLA intends to divert work to LawVest, work which regional or other partners would otherwise have undertaken, surely this investment by DLA should have been discussed and voted on by the entire partnership, with all the partners having been given full disclosure of what LawVest's purpose was? There is of course no question that there was a conflict of interest when the individual partners invested in LawVest or that they should divest themselves of this investment ....and not to their wives or other family members.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment