Freshfields defeats Competition Commission By The Lawyer 4 March 2009 12:56 17 December 2015 15:23 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anon 4 March 2009 at 16:07 Freshfields Can Freshfields ever do anything wrong? They seem to be walking on water. Reply Link M 5 March 2009 at 06:52 OMG Freshfields victory in a case: SHOCKER! “Walking on water”??? The inane nature of some of the comments posted on this site astounds me. Freshfields win stuff all the time. Who is posting this cr@p? Reply Link Anon 5 March 2009 at 09:27 Poor reading skills M needs to read the comment more carefully. It is precisely because Freshfields are winning so many cases, getting on panels and not firing people like its peers , show that it is ‘walking on water’. it appears to be the only Magic Circle Firm to be untouched by the maelstrom. Congratulations M. , you have joined the list of ‘inane’ commenters. Reply Link M 5 March 2009 at 17:39 Poor comprehension skills No, my love, perhaps you need to work on understanding nuance and sarcasm. My point is that there is no disproportionate “winning” by FF. It is winning things, as it ought to, but certainly not demonstrably more than it’s competitors (and neither do I think any of those are pulling away from the pack). It wins things all the time, which is why it is a great firm. The “walking on water” comment just sounds silly. The comment, along with one posted on the Wolsley rights issue article, appear to be the work of some kind of “marketing genius” FF fanboy. “Freshfields Wins Case” does not signify any paradigm shift, and a quick scan of the Lawyer confirms that FF has no particular deluge of work that outstrips its competitors. Granted, not laying off associates is good work by the Fleet St Elite, but let’s see how long that lasts. And let’s not forget the groaning from the FF lawyers who didn’t appreciate the pay freeze/decrease -“untouched by the maelstrom” it certainly is not. So, in sum, and in case you still don’t quite understand: the comment was to my mind (in demonstrating a over-awed “surprise” at FF’s recent “success”) inane. Reply Link Anon 6 March 2009 at 10:37 Sarcasm the lowest form of wit M., my unbeloved, not everyone who praises a firm is part of the PR machine. Your beef should be with the legal press. Reply Link M 6 March 2009 at 12:05 You’re right. Maybe you just work there, or are about to start a training contract with them. That would explain the “starry-eyed” comments… “Unbeloved” is a little harsh though. *sob Reply Link Anti-globalist 6 March 2009 at 14:31 Victory? for society? I’m surprised that the discussion is so petty, or even about Freshfields. Are you not more concerned about the march of Tescos and the effect on our high streets and growth of the habit of shopping by car? Reply Link Expatriate planning lawyer, Australia 11 March 2009 at 15:24 A narrow ‘victory’ Anyone who practises planning law could have seen this ‘victory’ coming. If it is a victory for anything at all, it is one for common sense. Local planning authorities are required by law to consider planning applications on planning grounds. The only policies they are required to apply are those in their own development plans and in guidance laid down by (in England) the Department of Communities and Local Goverment. The judgment confirms that local planning authorities would act ultra vires if they took account of non-planning considerations, even at the purported direction of another executive body. Sorry to be so boring while the rest of you are having so much fun. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.