Hogan Lovells dismisses senior litigator over £1m of false expenses

  • Print
  • Comments (95)

Readers' comments (95)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • @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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Taxi's and coffee?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

  • 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

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (95)