Harbottle forbidden from responding to News International's put-down
Harbottle & Lewis has asked News International to release it from its duty of client confidentiality to allow it to respond to points made by Rupert and James Murdoch in yesterday’s riveting Parliamentary hearing on the phone hacking scandal.
The media firm has come out fighting in the latest twist of the rapidly moving saga.
“News International representatives referred to our advice in their statements today [Tuesday 19 July] before the Parliamentary Select Committee, both as a result of questioning and on their own account,” the firm said in a statement.
“We asked News International to release us from our professional duties of confidentiality in order that we could respond to any inaccurate statements or contentions and to explain events in 2007. News International declined that request, and so we’re still unable to respond in any detail as to our advice or the scope of our instructions in 2007, which is a matter of great regret.”
On Monday, Harbottle defended itself in a letter sent to the media. The firm said press reports on Harbottle’s past role as a News International adviser in a previous investigation over phone hacking had “not accurately described the extent of our retainer”.
The firm’s letter was its response to allegations by Rupert Murdoch in The Wall Street Journal that it had made “a major mistake” during its role in an internal investigation into phone-hacking.
On Monday Lord Grabiner QC was appointed as chairman of the management and standards committee set up by News International’s parent News Corporation to investigate the scandal (18 July 2011).
To view our opinion piece ’Jack of Kent - When Privileges Collide’ click here.
Readers' comments (8)
Unicron | 20-Jul-2011 10:47 am
This is a smoke screen. Harbottle have two options, which given that they do these areas of the law, they are well aware of:
1) RM has said that they made a "major mistake" in a newspaper article. If this is not true, they are entitled to sue RM personally and New Corp and the Wall Street Journal for defamation.
2) There is case law in the area of breach of confidence when the confidence can be lost or usurped to correct an inaccuracy or misinformation. Likewise if one of the parties in the confidential relationship chooses to discuss aspects of that relationship the confidence is lost.
So in relation to 2) above, if Harbottle want to come out fighting then they can. I say Harbottle should put up or shut up?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2011 10:52 am
Its tough when a law firm of impeccable reputation cannot answer back. But that is why our duties of confidentiality and privilege are there to protect our clients in the first place. Another clue to the answer of what their retainer actually was may lie in a quote from Glen Aitcheson, Harbottle and Lewis’ managing partner in a Bloomberg phone interview. The company refused, Mr Aitcheson is quoted “so we are still unable to respond in any detail as to our advice or the scope of our instructions in 2007, which is a matter of great regret,”. The clue lies in the word scope. I suspect Harbottle & Lewis would like to explain what they were actually asked to do in the first place, namely their scope of work which may have been very limited in both range and conclusion. I would guess that a fee would have been agreed based on that scope. The unwanted publicity only serves as a reminder to law firms to ask themselves questions when taking on a high profile brief or one that requires examining possible wrong doing whether it can be carried out to the standards of the firm on the basis of the intended scope. Its that 20:20 hindsight thing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gladiatrix | 20-Jul-2011 12:28 pm
Lord McDonald has seen the documentation relating to Harbottle & Lewis's work for News International, and the emails which H&L was asked to review. On that basis and the content of the emails, he has described H&L's advice as 'incomprehensible'.
This seems to me to be damning, whatever the specific wording of H&L's retainer may be.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hackerama | 20-Jul-2011 1:57 pm
H & L can hardly complain - yet.
The vast majority of the general public had probably never heard of H & L until last week. They have received unprecedented exposure as a result of Murdoch's criticism and if it does subsequently transpire that Murdoch was talking out of his back end, then not only will H & L's reputation emerge intact on the back of this saga, but their profile will be far, far bigger than it was ever likely to be without having gone through it.
Of course, Murdoch could be spot on in which case H & L are all but finished...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2011 2:25 pm
What about the Watson Farley Williams appearance on Dispatches on Monday? Is that news or what?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vercingetorix | 20-Jul-2011 4:05 pm
Harbottles will I am afraid be left to swing in the wind.
They cannot repudiate their duty of confidentiality and News Int cannot be forced to disclose their advice as it is legally privileged.
This is alas the risk inherent in being a lawyer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew | 27-Jul-2011 5:44 pm
Don't see how they can sue RM. Occasional of absolute privilege?
And accurate press reports enjoy qualified privilege.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Jul-2011 8:25 pm
Can you imagine how much H&L's partners are just dying to say something?! Not allowing a lawyer to refute a slagging off in public is just plain cruel. The partnership at H&L will probably spontaneously combust if they are kept muzzled for much longer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment