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

  • Print
  • Comments (95)

Readers' comments (95)

  • I'm very proud of Christopher

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How come the rozzers aren't involved?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

  • 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

  • I don't feel sorry for him on a tax payer level

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • @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

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)