Ex-Hogan Lovells partner jailed for three years over £1.27m fraud
Those around him thought he was a shining example of a senior partner, always putting clients first and billing prodigious amounts. But today former Hogan Lovells partner Christopher Grierson was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to defrauding his firm of £1.27m.
Chris Grierson
The sentence was delivered after mitigation from Grierson’s defence counsel, QEB Hollis Whiteman’s Mark Ellison QC, who told the court how Grierson had been plagued by mental illness and driven to steal in a bid to maintain a stable home life amid reckless spending.
Grierson, who had been a litigation partner at the firm, began falsifying travel expenses at his firm in 2008, when he made false claims totalling £167,000. A year later this escalated to £526,785 and in 2010 he took £516,785. Last year, before the theft was uncovered, he took £63,611 between January and May.
In Southwark Crown Court this morning he was handed four sentences relating to four counts of fraud, one of 15 months, two of 36 months and one of 12 months, to run concurrently. He will serve half the three year sentence, with the remainder suspended. Grierson was also ordered to pay costs of £1,630.
Mitigating, Ellison told the court how Grierson had suffered from depression for many years and how he threw himself into his work to cope. Partner reviews from legacy firm Lovells between 2001 and 2009 described Grierson as an outstanding litigator with a prodigious workload - he billed 3,500 hours in one year - and “a model of how a senior partner should behave”. But cracks were beginning to show and the firm expressed concerns that Grierson was driving himself too hard – concerns that Grierson dismissed. He later agreed to see a psychiatrist linked to the firm.
Grierson’s state deteriorated when the BCCI case that he had worked on for more than 10 years collapsed in November 2005, leaving him with a sense of loss. In 2007 he was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder by a psychiatrist he had begun seeing.
At the same time, Grierson’s spending was spiralling out of control. The court heard from Ellison how Grierson had begun using prostitutes in 2003, but in 2006 this “entered into a different league” when he became infatuated with a Lebanese woman in New York. Grierson spent £630,000 on the woman, paying her rent and gifting her £280,000 in cash, among other things.
Grierson would later tell his psychiatrist that he knew the relationship was false and that he was a victim of manipulation, perhaps even a willing victim of manipulation.
Grierson began stealing from his firm in 2008 to continue the appearance of normality in his home life. Ellison admitted that Grierson could have solved his financial problems by selling his properties in England and France, but spoke about his desperation to avoid a similar experience to that of a few years before, when Grierson was forced to sell his UK home and downsize, putting strain on his relationship with his wife, with whom he is now in the middle of divorce proceedings.
It was also revealed in court that Grierson was only able to pay back what he had stolen from the firm when a close associate loaned him the money. He was able to pay back the associate following the sale of his property in France earlier this year.
Sentencing, Judge John Price took account of the fact that Grierson’s fraud was “well-planned and sophisticated” and obtained for him substantial sums, but added that the lawyer’s mental illness provided substantial mitigation. He quoted Grierson’s psychiatrist, who said that his illness impaired his judgement to the extent that he committed “social, sexual and financial indiscretions that were bound to be exposed”.
In a statement today, detective chief inspector Perry Stokes from the City of London Police, who led the investigation into Grierson, said: “Christopher Grierson’s greed was his downfall. He abused his status as a well-respected partner within a high profile law firm to steal more than a million pounds from the firm.
“This was a serious breach of trust and once he started offending, it was inevitable that he would come to our notice. The sentence passed today demonstrates how seriously the court views such cases.”
Grierson was dismissed from Hogan Lovells in 2011 after the fraud was detected (17 May 2011). As he had transferred the expenses to a dormant account, no client money had been affected.
The firm reported Grierson, a former equity partner on an annual profit share of more than £700,000, to the police in June 2011 after it recovered the stolen money (3 June 2011).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (38)
Doogie Hauser | 30-May-2012 2:40 pm
@John Smith | 30-May-2012 12:03 pm
As far as one can tell we already do have a City 'full of Griersons', it's just we have only exposed so very few of them so far.
Moreover, what is fiddling travel expenses compared to the great 'thefts' on the market carried out everyday by investment bankers and fund managers tipping each other off and sharing information only with a select few to distort the market in their favour? Grierson is small fry compared to them and the billions involved. Let's get our priorities right.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
other lawyer | 30-May-2012 2:51 pm
He was clearly ill and resorted to desperate measures.He will serve half his sentence and the remainder will be suspended but what life has he when he comes out?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 3:00 pm
@anonymous 30-May-2012 11:28 am "one rule for the rich"
I dealt with a sad case where a salesman accidentally invoiced a large company for orders it hadn't received. The company evidently didn't check and paid up. This salesman's employers (unaware of any fraud or mistake) congratulated the salesman on his fine sales figures. Swelled by this praise (and contribution towards meeting his target for annual bonus) the salesman invoiced the same company for more goods it hadn't received. This went on for a few years until discovered. The salesman was prosecuted and his employers refunded the customer (some of) the money.
The salesman himself "benefitted" from the fraud by about £6k per year (as it caused him to meet his modest sales bonus target).
Although his total fraud was greater in value (£4million or so- of which he indirectly received no more than £20k) and he admitted his wrongdoing as soon as he was caught, he was jailed for 6 years. 6 years in return for a pat on the back at work and a helping hand towards meeting his sales targets. Sad eh?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Love Unrequited | 30-May-2012 3:15 pm
At least some of the money went to a good cause, as he 'had spent over £600,000 of the stolen money pursuing a Lebanese woman he had fallen in love with in New York'.
A fool and his (firm's) money are soon parted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 3:36 pm
A most bizarre case. He clearly was a very talented lawyer so this all looks a bit tragic, my thoughts are with his poor family. It seems his sense of honesty was lost in the vain pursuit of an unrequited love that turned out to be very expensive. If this mysterious Lebanese woman needed half a million each year to be wooed clearly the suitor wasn't very suitable. Is he married? Ugh. Mortifyingly desperate.
Previous comparisons to theft crimes during the London riots are idiotic. That situation was totally different and occurred with a bundle of other crimes such as assault, battery and criminal damage. But, lawyers are in a fiduciary relationship with their clients, creating greater obligations and a more pressing need for honesty than the average person. I would have given him a longer sentence.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 3:37 pm
It's a bit ridiculous to compare this with riot sentences and make the unsubstantiated claim of 'one rule for the rish and one for the poor'.
Firstly, if Grierson had gone out and joined in the riots I'm sure he would have received an equivalent sentence to the other people involved.
Secondly, the riots created terror throughout London and led to several deaths - things that were taken into account in the sentences handed down.
Thirdly, it is arguable that the impact of a jail term for someone in Grierson's position will generally be far geater than the majority of those convicted in the riots. A dishonestly in employment/fraud offence closes a lot more doors than a conviction for violence.
(also, he did return all the money)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 3:49 pm
Please can we stop with all this 'he was sick' and 'his life will be ruined once he gets out'. This man's only ailment was that he was sick of self-love and addled by the bought affection of his Lebanese bit on the side. Why would one assume that this man is going to endure genuine hardship once he gets out the can in a year and a half? He's 26 years PQE and has been an equity partner for more than a decade (earning a 30x multiple of national mean earnings every year): I think it's safe to say he'll live a comfortable life even if he never works again. Instead spare a thought for all those who were convicted on trumped-up charges in protest/riot scenarios - and who'll never work again due to the CRB system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 30-May-2012 3:49 pm
Gierson paid pack GBP 1 million, reported by The Lawyer a couàple of years back. It always seemed to me that he took advances on partnership payouts because he was overrloaded with the Lehman Brothers BK, where - you might recall - he was able to defend the rights of former LEH staff.
Note that the Lebanese lady isn'ty named; I have stood in court and heard top lawyers knowingly perjure themseves.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 4:39 pm
I am the lebanese woman now single, only rich lawyers please contact me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-May-2012 4:42 pm
as my former boss used to say, in cases like this there are usually slow horses or fast women involved.
He was lucky to draw that judge - many of what the judge appears to have regarded as mitigating factors would be regarded by many others as aggravating.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment