News Law firms HogLove gives Grierson extra week to repay £1m of fraudulent expenses By Margaret Taylor 1 June 2011 13:32 17 December 2015 14:52 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 1 June 2011 at 14:36 “Jolly good chap, Old Chris. Fallen on hard times, poor blighter…. let’s give him some more time to stump for it….” Honestly, you couldn’t make this up. He blagged from his mates and now they don’t want to take action. The cops don’t appear too interested, either. Then again, going for finance to pay off for theft isn’t probably the easiest task in the world…. Reply Link hartley ambrose 1 June 2011 at 15:04 His reputation is ruined. Doubtful he’ll ever work again. I’m disappointed the police don’t seem to have done anything (yet) but they probably will as soon as he doesn’t pay up. Reply Link Interested Observer 1 June 2011 at 16:09 I suspect that there will be a lot more enthusiasm for reporting the matter to the police if he doesn’t pay up. Reply Link Kim Kardashian 1 June 2011 at 17:33 If I stole a million pounds from my company, I would be up before Old Knacker before you could say “Bernie Madoff”. The Lovells partnership may well be hurt, upset and angry with their former mate, but their reaction in not bringing in the police betrays the fact that law firms still see themselves as old boys clubs, rather than professional businesses. Reply Link 1890 Partnership Fan 1 June 2011 at 18:37 @Kim Kardashian | 1-Jun-2011 5:33 pm That may be true – but as you know, a law firm is not a company, nor was Grierson an employee. The question is who or what has ‘lost’ this money – which is now to be returned? The problem with partnerships is that they make partners feel entitled to more and more of the profits the longer they stay. In such circumstances the line between what is ‘mine’ and what I ‘deserve’ gets very blurred. This is no apology for what he did, if he had wanted so much more cash he should have left and joined a US firm, rather than treat expenses as top-up remuneration. (Although, maybe he just did it for the thrill – a lawyer’s life can certainly be a dull one…..) Reply Link You cannot be serious! 2 June 2011 at 09:22 @ 1890 Partnership Fan HL is an LLP therefore elements of the Companies Act 2006 apply. The LLP is an entity and it has allegedly lost money by his alleged obtaining transfers by deception. If it were to file a complaint to the police, they would bring charges on this basis. In any event, the claims are that he claimed over £1m in additional expenses. No doubt these were billed as dibs, therefore the client has lost out. Reply Link City Gent 2 June 2011 at 09:49 “Fraudulent expenses” That’s a bit strong isn’t it? Has anyone actually confirmed that this wasn’t just administrative error on his part (and as a top flight partner I think he can be forgiven for not spending too much time on paperwork given his other commitments)? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone is a good maxim that perhaps his critics should try to stick to. Reply Link Anonymous 2 June 2011 at 10:20 To all you city lawyers paraphrasing slabs of legislation, the fact remains with what authority was he allowed to over claim and was it done with legitimacy and without the intent to defraud his firm. If that is the case and other partners took the same view, how many law firms would remain financially viable? We see a Lord sentenced to 12 months jail for over claiming a minor amount, yet Mr Grierson (Gruesome?) is offered another week’s amnesty to repay the money. The scales of justice have prevailed yet again. Not! The arrogance and hypocrisy of lawyers, especially partners never ceases to amaze. If a police investigation went down at HL, who knows what would be uncovered…why aren’t HL referring this mater to the police? Reply Link Anonymous 2 June 2011 at 13:01 The way that this has been dealt with, and the fact that the police have still not been involved, has simply confirmed my view of City firms as moral vacuums dominated by sociopaths. Reply Link Kourtney Kardashian 2 June 2011 at 13:29 I tell you what. This story is dragging. If this guy has not been arrested and charged by the end of the week, I will report the incident to the police myself. I will send The Lawyer the letter that I have written as well to give them a story. And if the police do not do something then I will write to the IPCC. I will not rest until this guy is in a cell. Sick of these greedy partners who think they own the world. I don’t care if he pays it back either. If some bloke stole a pair of shoes from a shop and then when he gets caught offered to give them back, I suspect plod would still charge them. Reply Link Interested Observer 2 June 2011 at 14:28 Methinks that City Gent is trolling here. Claiming an extra million pounds in expenses can hardly be an administrative error. Not even politicians trot out anything this ludicrous. Reply Link Anonymous 2 June 2011 at 14:31 £1m over 4 years; yep, could well be an “administrative error”. Reply Link Kourtney Kardashian (again!) 2 June 2011 at 16:12 I am so angry, I am such an angry and confused person. It’s got nothing to do with me but I am so angry with how this has been dealt with. I don’t even know why I am so angry as I don’t know anyone involved in this case but it just makes my blood boil. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do – I’m going to start writing my letters right now. Why should I wait till the end of the week? And if the police don’t act on my letter I’m going to steal a pair of shoes just to prove my point that I would be arreseted for stealing shoes. Then everyone will know how unfair this world really is if I get arrested for stealing some shoes. And it will serve everyone right! Even the person whose shoes I will steal for not keeping them safe. Why is everyone but me so stupid? Reply Link Upsidedowncatfish 2 June 2011 at 16:20 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Oh, maybe that’s why the other partners aren’t keen on police involvement. Meal out here, drinks there … all in the cause of customer relations, of course. Where does it actually end? If it’s the principle and not the multi-million pound detail, then it’s not just HogLove, that’s for sure. Reply Link Haldeman 2 June 2011 at 18:09 If he doesn’t pay it all back they should raffle off their vacation placements to make up the difference. Reply Link Haldeman 2 June 2011 at 19:02 All firms are relucant to air dirty laundry in public. Expenses today…. overcharging tomorrow. It’s a potential rat’s nest. If for example Partners are found to have charged incorrectly claimed expenses to a client that may lead into issues of over charging generally. “Rounding up” the clock, double charging on the train to a meeting while “working” on another client’s file, “supervising a team”. The more complex the transactions the greater the opportunity for padding because the harder it is for the client to keep track. Bung the anxious ones some itemised time sheets – that should keep them happy. Bit like the accountants at Barings.. It’s all there in the servers’ memory. If clients forensically examined bills they might find that some City Partners and fee earners had re-written the laws of physics – there are more than 24 hours in a day and it is possible to be in more than one place at a time. The quantum theory of client care. Tip for today to clients and in house lawyers -don’t look at the time sheets for the time- look at them for the physical discrepencies when correlated agaisnt your own records. Reply Link Anonymous 3 June 2011 at 13:37 “Creditor pursues primary contractual recourse against Debtor to ensure recovery of sums prior to exploring other avenues” shock. Reply Link Interested Observer 3 June 2011 at 14:09 Supporters of this light fingered partner do not seem to realise that when money is stolen, the relationship is not one of debtor and creditor, but thief and victim. There’s no contract involved in theft. Reply Link Anonymous 3 June 2011 at 15:43 You confuse me for someone who gives the slightest toss about the man or the firm. I should prefer that the likely costs of his residing at HM B&B were better spent, but that is by the by. HL got paid and got out. I imagine their deferring in reporting the matter to the authorities was done following appropriate advice and consideration. More stories about selling work experience days in copy rooms please. Reply Link Old Lover 3 June 2011 at 15:58 @ Youcannotbeserious Clients probably didn’t get billed. I’m guessing it’s an old trick that works particularly well on big litigation matters with huge ledger balances on them – pad out the file with disbursements, leave them sitting there a few months, write them off (taking care not to write too many off at the same time), the write-offs get dumped bit by bit into a nominal ledger (which in a firm the size of HL could well be tens of millions of quid per year), thus exploiting the fact that in many law firms the disbursement write-offs and the unbilled disbursements balance are amongst the least well-analysed, least understood and most open-to-abuse areas of the accounts. I don’t know if this is what happened but it is one of the likely possibilities. Probably nothing wrong with the expense review processes if it was all done via the back door using the matter files as the perfect foil. Reply Link Anonymous 8 June 2011 at 19:16 Calm Down Boys. Back to day job head down and start billing. HL have got it spot on and not over reacted. Once the real facts emerge only then can a judgement call be made. In the interim it is time for reflection. The police are not a party that needs to be involved at this stage ( if at all) it is very easy to get emotional about sums like this which in the scheme of things are loose change. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.