Hogan Lovells dismisses senior litigator over £1m of false expenses
Hogan Lovells senior litigator Christopher Grierson has been dismissed from the partnership after claiming over £1m in false expenses over the course of four years.
Following an internal investigation that was set in motion at the beginning of this year, Grierson was dismissed last week and has now been reported to the SRA.
Partners were informed over the weekend while the rest of the firm was told of Grierson’s dismissal yesterday.
A spokesperson at the firm said that Grierson had co-operated fully with the firm’s inquiries and has agreed to repay the full £1m within 14 days.
The spokesperson added: “An investigation carried out by the firm has revealed that no clients were affected as a result of Christopher’s actions.
“Christopher acted entirely on his own. He was a long-standing partner in the firm and highly regarded. We’re very saddened and concerned by these events, which represent a major breach of trust.
“We’re very clear as to our professional responsibilities as solicitors and we’ve promptly taken the appropriate action.”
Grierson, who is in his late fifties and who was on legacy firm Lovells’ partnership council from 2006 to April 2009, is a distinguished international litigator. His recent cases have included advising AAR, the consortium made up of Russian conglomerates Alfaa Group, Access Industries and Renova Group, on its dispute on the TNK-BP energy venture in Russia.
He is best known for having advised BCCI liquidators Deloitte & Touche for over a decade. That work came to an end after Deloitte’s controversial £850m claim against the Bank of England sensationally collapsed in November 2005 (7 November 2005).
 The Lawyer’s main Twitter account is twitter.com/thelawyermag The Lawyer twitterati now include twitter.com/lawyercatrin twitter.com/TheLawyerKaty, twitter.com/LawyermagEurope, twitter.com/TheLawyerJames, twitter.com/TheLawyerMatt, twitter.com/lawyer2bmag, twitter.com/husnarab |
Readers' comments (95)
Tim | 17-May-2011 1:09 pm
That's a lot of Chicken Katsu.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:09 pm
I have also worked with Christopher and have only good things to say about him. I'm sorry that this has happened and that he is having to face this publicity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:11 pm
Whilst HL claims clients were not affected at all, indirectly they were, I believe. As client fees are heavily driven by internal operating costs. As internal costs rise (thanks to this circumstance) so do fees. Therefore and indirectly, clients are affected.
The reputation risk to HL is punishing despite publicising they brought fraudulent conduct to an end. They would have been better off dealing with this quietly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:11 pm
City partners are clearly well paid by the standards of the general population, but do many of them have a million cash lying in a readily accessible bank account?
Or is this bloke making frantic calls to his bank manager to round up the notes?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:18 pm
I worked with Christopher and I am truly shocked: he was always a gentleman, kind and trustworthy. Something must have happened to prompt such out-of-character behaviour.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:30 pm
@anonymous 1.11pm. They would not have been better dealing with this quietly. It would have got out eventually and done even more damage. They appear to have handled this well. Conducted a thorough investigation and taken the appropriate disciplinary steps.
Anyway, you are assuming that HL are able to control the flow of information to the press. I don't see a press release on this. This is either good, old fashioned reporting by sniffing a story that might otherwise have been buried, or a leak to the press.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:40 pm
Booking your first class flights on points and claiming the money back from the firm might be one way he managed to spend quite so much in so short a period and evade the internal controls. Funny though, most firms are aware of this one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Spin Meister | 17-May-2011 1:44 pm
@Anonymous | 17-May-2011 1:11 pm
Making no announcement may have at first seemed the right thing to do, but imagine the news came out in a year's time and it seemed HL had been suppressing the story? That could be very corrosive to the brand. Or perhaps more tricky still, the partner leaves for a rival (obviously not telling the rival why they are leaving HL), and then HL has to give a reason to the press why this senior lawyer has left creating double the mess (remember the case with the Hengeler partner who went to a US firm then had to leave them too when revelations were made about reason for his departure from Hengeler.)
The thing is, if you deny it/conceal it then it takes on a life of its own and it becomes unpredictable. Get it out and forget it is a tough PR strategy, but at least HL can put this behind them and move on, same goes for the partner.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 2:17 pm
Having worked with Chris for a number of years I echo the sentiments expressed by Anonymous@1.18pm. He was always the consummate professional, hard-working, a fantastic leader and a gentleman. I cannot imagine what prompted this behaviour and am sorry that he is having to endure this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 3:31 pm
Where does the figure of £100k come from in The Lawyer e-mail on this story?
"If possession really were nine tenths of the law, then former Hogan Lovells litigator Christopher Grierson would only be faced with paying back £100,000 to his erstwhile partners.
As it is, law firms are usually full of the kind of people who know that such legislative inaccuracy has no place in the statute book, so Grierson will have to find the cool million he pilfered from HoLo coffers over the course of four years of expenses wangling"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment