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)
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 3:32 pm
Cool in a crisis: meet the lawyers thriving despite the recession (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5852780.ece)
"In what must surely rank among the most complicated mandates to have emerged from the downturn, Christopher Grierson was hired to help navigate Bernard Madoff’s maze of assets in Europe. Appointed by the US bankruptcy trustee supervising Madoff’s fallen $50 billion empire, the Lovells litigator is working alongside administrators Grant Thornton to solve legal problems standing in the way of Madoff’s creditors recovering their cash. Other crunch-related work has included advising the FSA on the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which involved Grierson helping to man a 24-hour rolling conference call between parties affected by the investment bank’s collapse. On the corporate side, Grierson was also a key player in negotiating a peaceful resolution to the long and bitter dispute between shareholders in TNK-BP, the Russian energy joint venture. He is married with teenage children, but family life has understandably taken something of a backseat in the last few months."
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 3:33 pm
I also have worked with Christopher over many years and simply cannot understand this. He always appeared the cunsumate professional and one can only assume that there is some explanation that goes beyond mere greed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hugey | 17-May-2011 3:37 pm
Surprised at all the sympathy for this guy. He was (allegedly) stealing, right? He was also already equity, right? Whatever drove him to it, a plea of mitigation looks hard to entertain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HoLo alumnus | 17-May-2011 3:41 pm
Wasn't he known for his fraud and asset tracing skills? To all that commend him on his personal skills, I agree - a true gent. To those who feel sorry for him, take a good hard look at what you are condoning....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Public school mentality makes me want to puke | 17-May-2011 3:56 pm
@Hugey | 17-May-2011 3:37 pm
Agree with Hugey - this kind of sympathy for what appears a criminal act is classic public school boy morality - i.e. if he's 'a gent' then he must be alright.
So sick of this posh-boy, English mentality. The subtext of such sentiments is effectively that if you are rich you are above the law.
If a support staff member had stolen £1m from HL there would be universal derision for the person.
The class system is alive and well in the City that's for sure.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 4:05 pm
To all those expressing outrage at sympathy, you shouldn't be so quick to judge. You have a few lines of press report and no inside knowledge. No-one is condoning criminal conduct but the man's character and the fact that he was a senior equity partner for many years go very much against the idea that he set out to steal in order to boost his bank balance.
We can see he's admitted submitting false claims - only he knows why at the moment.
Presumption of innocence, anyone?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Honest Tick | 17-May-2011 4:06 pm
Reminds me of Yes Minister talking about bankers...
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: I mean of course they've broken those, but they've broken the basic, the basic rule of the City.
Sir Humphrey: I didn't know there were any.
Sir Desmond: Just the one. If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey: If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey: So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond: Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barry Oyne | 17-May-2011 4:07 pm
Taxi's and coffee?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-May-2011 4:19 pm
This is theft, pure and simple. Think of the poor people in accounts, marketing, the mail room .... as well as the fee earners ... even if it was 1 or 2, who may not have had to take redundancy as a direct - or indirect - result of this man's greed.
Gent or not; it makes no difference.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
richard | 17-May-2011 4:30 pm
How can clients NOT be affected??? Someone who fiddles expenses, fiddles expenses. Are they really expecting us to believe that he was so "honest" that he made sure none of the £1m of fraudulent claims was on client matters?
I can see why they want to say that to avoid being sued themselves, but is anyone out there seriously buying that line?
Be interested to hear from anyone who is!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment