Hammonds ex-partners: we will not surrender
Former ;Hammonds partners embroiled in a £3m profit litigation with the firm have spoken publicly for the first time to accuse their former ;partnership ;of allowing the case to drag on three years longer than they believe was necessary.
As the war of words between the two sides escalates ahead of a hearing next month, seven former partners said if Hammonds had disclosed documents at an earlier stage then litigation may not have been necessary.
Watson Farley & Williams partner Stephen Tupper, the spokesman for seven of the eight former partners named in the litigation, said: “If [Hammonds’] tone and style had been different I’m sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation. After three years of discussion we’ve got to the point where what we’ve being saying from the beginning has been fully endorsed by the court.”
Hammonds Leeds chief Simon Miller told The Lawyer that 23 former partners were originally asked to repay overdrawings from the 2003-04 and 2004-05 financial years. After nine had repaid the sums the firm sued the remaining 14. There are now eight remaining who are yet to reach an agreement.
Tupper said his group did not repay the money because the firm refused to disclose documents supporting its claims until February 2008’s case management conference hearing.
But Miller said his firm provided all the partners with more information than required once directed to do so by the court.
Miller explained that the delay was to allow appropriate undertakings to be negotiated to prevent the release of confidential information to the press.
Although the former partners now have the documents, they are still refusing to pay because they want the court to assess any debts independently.
Miller defended the need for litigation, saying: “This claim, from the Hammonds perspective, is about the obligation of partners to stand together, not just in the good times, but also in difficult times.”
Tupper said: “[Hammonds says] you can stand shoulder to shoulder with us from the point of view of paying back money, not shoulder to shoulder with us to see the documents as to why you should pay.”
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 6-Oct-2008 7:26 pm
How unpleasant
Message to Hammonds, we all know your forward payments to partners were as prudent as Gordon Brown's decision to sell UK's gold supply when it was next to nothing an ounce. Why be embarassed about having to admit profits took a dive against expectations leading to a resultant claw back . Where is that Yorkshire straight talking?
Win or lose aren't you just relieved you are not working at or ( worse) have part ownership of Hammonds. At least Mr Tupper and the many many other ex Hammonds partners ( has any firm have such a high turnover in the last decade ?) can be relieved to have jumped ship. The old Hammond Suddards senior partners must look on with sadness.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Oct-2008 10:24 am
Its worse
I sincerely hope that the remaining partners hold out. We will then see what actually happened. The Hammonds’ line continues to be “Nothing strange about this, just a bit of under-performance leading to a call for repayment, that’s all”. They cast the former partners as people for whom not paying is a sole motivation, which is a gross distortion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Oct-2008 4:29 pm
GET OVER IT
What is wrong with these former partners?They had more money than they were entitled to and then shock - when they were asked to repay it they didn't like it!Oh dear - my heart bleeds for them. The fact that so many of the other partners have settled is indicative of the fact that hammonds have the upper hand here. What do they say about lawyers as clients? I bet Hammonds cannot wait for their day in court!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Oct-2008 5:07 pm
Hammonds
The person who posted the “Get Over It” comment is either from inside Hammonds and should know better (because they should know the facts) or from outside Hammonds and should know better (because they should realise that they just don’t know the facts).
On either basis their comment has little merit. As far as I am aware there isn’t a saying about lawyers as client, other than where the lawyers act for themselves – but in this case, none is (apart from Hammonds!).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Oct-2008 2:25 pm
Hammonds' day in court
I'm sure Mr Get-Over-It is right and Hammonds can't wait for their day in court. They've exerted all the pressure they can bear on the ex-partners to make sure that the case never ends up in court, of course, but I'm sure that's just to lull them into a false sense of security. You can always tell who has the law on their side: it's inevitably the people who adopt Hammonds' tactic of fudging and evasion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Oct-2008 10:05 am
Mr Get-Over-IT
Mr Get-Over-It clearly gets his quoatations wrong but his point seems sound - even Steven Tupper seems to agree -“If [Hammonds’] tone and style had been different I’m sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation..". What is this if not an admission that their biggest complaint is how Hammonds have handled the case rather than the substance of the claim?
And, if that is their point, arent these all the same guys who, when times were good, were happy to rub the rest of our noses in it with just how good things were "up North"? I certainly remember the press adverts and the boasts that Hammonds lawyers have "big balls!" Gentlemen - you cant have your cake and eat it.15 down - 8 to go - time to face up to reality and behave like real men.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Oct-2008 11:02 am
Hallucinatory proclamations
So now it appears that Hammonds have the government's newly-appointed Office of Bewildering Fuzzy Logic on their side. Stephen Tuppers quote clearly means that a compromise could have been reached if Hammonds had not been so intransigent, which is a long country mile from admitting any fault.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Oct-2008 1:35 pm
Mr Get Over It
Quite right – “real men” pay up immediately, even when they are unhappy about the merits of the claim against them. I really hope you are not a litigator. If you are then I think I may have spotted the reason why you have never successfully defended a claim.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment