HogLove calls in police as Grierson repays £1m of expenses
Hogan Lovells has reported former partner Christopher Grierson to the police after the senior litigator repaid the £1m he claimed as false expenses from the firm over four years.
Grierson, 59, had originally been required to repay the money by 27 May, but the firm’s management agreed to extend the deadline until today (1 June 2011).
Hogan Lovells’ decision to report Grierson to the police follows three weeks of pressure for the firm to treat the incident as a criminal matter.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority was informed of the false expenses on 11 May and has since launched an investigation into the matter and Hogan Lovells’ expense checking procedures (23 May 2011).
In a statement, a spokesperson for Hogan Lovells said: “Since discovering Christopher’s actions our focus has been on promptly investigating and gathering the necessary evidence; being open with partners and our people about what has happened; and notifying the regulator. We have now recovered the money owed to us and have notified the City of London police.
“No clients were affected as a result of Christopher’s actions. He committed a major breach of trust and we have taken the appropriate action throughout.
“We will be making no further comments on this matter.”
Grierson was dismissed from the Hogan Lovells partnership on 11 May after a regular checking process at the firm uncovered a string of false expenses, mainly consisting of airfares which Grierson had booked and then cancelled over a period of four years (17 May 2011).
Readers' comments (12)
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 2:47 pm
I sincerely hope that the police also investigate why there was such a long delay before they were brought in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 3:40 pm
How appalling... Makes the firm look as if it cares about criminal justice only once its own finances have been safely looked after.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 3:57 pm
Well played Hogs. Make sure the scoundrel pays up before you shop him to the police. They are obviously getting some good advice
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 4:08 pm
The guy's paid the money back - isn't that enough? Why involve Plod?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stuart Little | 4-Jun-2011 12:24 pm
"The guy's paid the money back - isn't that enough? Why involve Plod?" Anonymous@4.08pm - you clearly have no idea. There are so many things wrong with your comment it beggars belief. If you are a lawyer, I pity anyone that has the misfortune to instruct you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Jun-2011 2:35 pm
@ 3.40pm - The firm is fully entitled to prioritise its own interests. The money belongs to the firm and the partners, not the general public! We're not talking about a political expenses scandal or taxpayers money here. I agree it is disgraceful what the guy has done, and I'm glad it's been reported to the police in the end (after all, there's no reason why he shouldn't be treated like any other criminal), but if Hogans wants to prioritise getting the money back ahead of anything else, provided no clients have been adversely affected, then it should be entitled to do so.
Well played Lovells!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Little Pea | 5-Jun-2011 9:12 pm
Why involve Plod? Presumably because it merits it and there are some issues around honesty and integrity which may be of interest to Plod.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jun-2011 8:48 am
"He committed a major breach of trust " - nice way of saying he committed a major case of theft. Max Clifford would be proud.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jun-2011 11:52 am
Staggering that comments along the lines of 4.08pm "The guy's paid the money back - isn't that enough? Why involve Plod?" are still being made. He is (a) a thief and thieves are not absolved of their crime by returning the goods once they are caught out, and (b) he is a senior and renowned lawyer and therefore deserves to be held to a higher standard than most
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jun-2011 2:33 pm
@Anonymous | 6-Jun-2011 8:48 am
Actually "breach of trust" is the correct legal terminology. As a partner he owed the firm fiduciary obligations. By knowingly recieving funds that he was not entitled to he quite literally committed a breach of trust.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jun-2011 3:06 pm
Oh, how well this will play with the public. I'd start by earmarking a look at C4 news tonight - they'll enjoy this one. Questions will be asked about how this could have run for four years before being unearthed, and the delay of nearly a month in alerting the police of a major crime is frankly disgusting. Surely Hogloves understand that it's possible to pursue their money while the police pursue their enquiries? Who was advising them - not just re the law, but also concerning their PR? I don't detect attar of roses around this story at all!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bemused | 10-Jun-2011 4:23 am
I'm amused to see the claim that the misdemeanour was uncovered by a "regular checking process". If thye'd had a regular checking process, they wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place.
Unless "regular" is defined as once every four years - and I'm afraid when it comes to auditing, it most certainly isn't.
Spare a thought for all those other partners with dubious expense claims (AKA a sense of entitlement that's out of control). They must be quaking in their boots.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment