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)
Bernard Madoff | 18-May-2011 5:04 pm
I'm very proud of Christopher
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-May-2011 5:11 pm
How come the rozzers aren't involved?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-May-2011 5:23 pm
To what extent was it 'property belonging to another' for the purposes of theft?
If he was an equity partner (and the million wasn't client money), then arguably he owned it and the taking of it was just a breach of the partnership agreement, ie breach of contract and therefore a civil wrong, and so no theft was committed.
The partners might have a breach of contract claim against him but they will have suffered no loss if he repays it. In the circumstances, I imagine a settlement agreement between him and the hoglove partners waiving their claim against him in return for the repayment of the mill.
Not theft.
Fraud/deceit/breach of fiduciaries - probably.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-May-2011 5:32 pm
An amazing ignorance of partnership law! (a) HL are an LLP so it definitely isn't his money and (b) even if they were a general partnership, partnership assets are distinct from the assets of an individual partner. It is theft. Having said that, I am not a public school boy but I still feel sorry for him on a human level.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Davina Harris | 18-May-2011 6:00 pm
I don't feel sorry for him on a tax payer level
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-May-2011 6:25 pm
Whatever people say, it's a sad way to end a career. And he was a nice chap, and a good litigator. Not that either of these excuses him.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
patel | 18-May-2011 9:05 pm
If this was done in a small firm then that firm would have been closed down by now by the SRA. How unfair is this profession
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hallileaks | 19-May-2011 0:26 am
Very disappointing that the police are doing nothing about this. It appears to be one law for the rich lawyers and another for the poor. The fact he may not have needed the money makes it worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-May-2011 2:38 am
MPs caught out fiddling their expenses to the tune of £20k-£40K went to jail for 12 months or more regardless of paying back the amounts. Why should this individual escape with just paying it back? Whether it's deception or false accounting or another offence under the theft acts, the man is a "thief" and should be held accountable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ponzi | 19-May-2011 7:06 am
@Anonymous | 18-May-2011 5:23 pm
Steady there Judge Judy, before you copy/paste slabs from partnership/contract law texts on the web. Partnership or not and irrespective of what was written in his contract, could you imagine if what you're saying is correct (and I pray it's not) and other Hog Lov partners did the same? Or partners of firms in general? It would bring the English legal system to financial decapitation.
So while you pass this off as a predominantly civil matter, the wider reaching repercussions of this individual cannot go without mention. It appears he intentionally over claimed spanning a 4 year period for his financial gain (not that he doesn’t have financial gains to begin with). It’s pathetic that all these elitist wannabe top gun lawyers join the bandwagon of supporting their own kind.
All this does is confirm that lawyers in his support infer they support his actions…
The more I read statements as “…He was a consummate professional…”, “…A real gentleman and a mentor…” really? He abused his position and the trust his employer and clientele confided in him.
I do not feel any sorrow for this individual. What a way to end of his career!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment