The managing partner of Follett Stock has been accused of bullying a female lawyer, an employment tribunal has heard.

Chris Lingard
According to reports in the national press, Chris Lingard is accused of sacking solicitor Kate Baker from the firm because of her gender after she started a relationship.
Baker has filed claims of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and unfair dismissal. In her statement to Exeter tribunal judge Christopher Carstairs, Baker, who was based in the firm’s Truro office, said: “Mr Lingard on many occasions told me that he did not want me in a relationship or to have babies.”
Follett Stock is using its own employment solicitor Guy Hollebon for the case and he was granted permission by the judge to file a defence, despite missing a deadline.The Lawyer understands the firm sent an email without the attachment containing the defence.
The full hearing will take place at a later date and there is a case management hearing in March.
Rougemont Chambers barrister James Bax is acting for Baker, instructed by Stephens Scown head of employment Terry Falcao.
According to the Daily Mail, Lingard criticised staff for taking lunch, the way in which calls were taken, the sign outside not being displayed properly, the radio, the blinds being closed, people leaving at 5pm and employees looking miserable.
It was also alleged that employees were not allowed to talk between the hours of 9am and 1pm, which the company allegedly called ‘golden time’.
In her statement, Baker also claimed that Lingard’s wife Fiona Higgins, the business director at Follett Stock, had sent her a text message confirming that her husband wanted her to remain single.
She accused the firm of “a culture of bullying, oppression, and lack of good systems and support for the employees…”.
Bax claimed that Baker was used a “distraction” at meetings where important clients “seemed to like” her appearance. He said: “She was popular with the chiefs. They were all asking about her.”
He said Baker was told she was sacked for making mistakes that included failing to diarise a hearing correctly.
In a statement to The Lawyer, the firm responded: “Kate Baker was dismissed for gross incompetence and inappropriate email correspondence. She raised no complaint before her dismissal.
“Anyone who knows Follett Stock and our managing partner will recognise her attempted characterisation of our culture and of Chris Lingard as a grotesque distortion of reality.
“Chris is very conscious of discrimination, being severely disabled himself. This makes Ms Baker’s decision to base her allegations on supposed discrimination particularly disappointing.
“Of course we deny her allegations, some of which are frankly laughable.
“Her suggestion that our policy of dedicating each morning entirely to our clients’ work means that ‘nobody is allowed to talk’ is a prime example.”
Follett Stock specialises in litigation and employment law and Lingard was voted in as the firm’s first managing partner in 2005 (20 February 2006).
Readers' comments (23)
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 11:04 am
I would have thought that Lingards failure to get his defence in on time to this was the ultimate display of incompetance !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 11:12 am
so he is using the fact he is disabled as a defence? you can still be disabled and a sexist.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 11:57 am
In this day and age, it is quite unbelievable that any business, let alone a solicitors firm, could act in this way. Shameful
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 12:11 pm
Issuing a statement of more than one sentence and publically accusing a laywer of gross incompetence is gross incompetence in my opinion when litigation is underway - Baker has no choice but now to pursue her claim ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 12:32 pm
"I can't be a *insert allegation of prejudice here*, some of my best friends are *insert prejudicial reference here*"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 1:56 pm
The firms website says amongst many things he's about
finding solutions not creating problems and also he doesn't like coming second ... well it seems given the alleged treatment Miss Baker is presenting him with one very big problem; & his PR efforts have come a very distant second to the publicity she has attracted : where hasn't this been posted and reposted?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Worzel | 10-Jan-2013 2:09 pm
It was also alleged that employees were not allowed to talk between the hours of 9am and 1pm, which the company allegedly called ‘golden time’.
Indeed, as 'golden' as a freshly baked pasty.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 2:42 pm
First rule of effective advocacy only a fool represents themselves in court - using one of their own lawyers to defend this case is madness.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 4:06 pm
Playing the disability card is a strange thing to do in a sexual discrimination case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jan-2013 8:46 pm
His disability shouldn't play any part in this case. It has absolutely no relevance.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment