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 | 2-Mar-2012 12:57 pm
The sad thing is most of what is on here is true - the real facts are I suspect even more daming - a complete stitch up and the culprits will continue to believe they can walk on water as they are in Nige's gang - the Board and Tony Angel have let the firm and the vast majority of the Parnership down by not dealing with this firmly now and there is a large body of Partners not satisfied with the current approach - some of the culprits profess they did not realise the conflict point or potential breach of duty of good faith to their firm and fellow partners - that open admission should lead them to realising they are not fit and proper to be Partners at any law firm .... but of course their arrogance won't enable them to see this. The individuals are known - what goes around comes around ... hopefully sooner rather than later - it couldn't happen to a finer bunch and I for one look forward to their day of reckoning !! Or guys do the decent thing and take a walk. You will be waved off with cheers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Hill | 2-Mar-2012 1:23 pm
Definition of 'good faith defense': (1) clean heart, empty head; (2) also known as the 'dumb a**e defense' - i.e. I was too stupid to know what was going on; (3) fall back defense if stonewalling or pounding on the table doesn't work; (4) the defense right before cringing and crying and sputtering '... oh, please don't'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Mar-2012 6:36 pm
This won't be the only thing to come to light
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Mar-2012 7:55 am
I am amused by those trying to apply the ethics of a bygone time to this episode. The law has ceased to be a profession and is now a hard nosed business containing hard nosed people who define themselves and their perceived successes by the size of their assets. This one back fired but how many times has this sort of thing happened and remained under the radar? It will all be forgotten in no time and the regional partners will settle down without thinking too much about the master plan and what Lawvest means for them in the medium term.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon | 5-Mar-2012 12:42 pm
I don't think the law on taking a secret profit can be regarded as the ethics of a bygone time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Mar-2012 8:29 pm
As an old school, provincial solicitor, whose nose has never been in the trough,the only encouraging thing to emerge from all this is the number of outraged and conventional lawyers,like me, who have posted their disgust at the greedy antics and shown that they do not need the awfulness of this matter spelled out or conflict of interest explained. And ABS Has only just started!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Mar-2012 4:49 pm
When basic ethics like this appear to be breached by senior Partners in a firm and the Board and the Senior Partner of that firm then fail to address that in any sort of adequate manner for the Partnership one must question how long it will be before clients and existing Partners vote with their feet and walk - one hopes a vote of no confidence is on its way - one must question whether the weak handling of this by the Board and the Senior Partner will now lead to the start of a terminal decline - when basic standards like this slip and are allowed to slip all is lost.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Hill | 9-Mar-2012 4:24 pm
Does the lack of reports of new developments indicate the sound of things being swept under the rug?
As to the previous post, lawyers leaving would require integrity - I have my lamp, just where is that honest man?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Arthur Sixpence | 9-Mar-2012 7:51 pm
Dear Sir
Oops.
Yours faithfully
Arthur
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment