HogLove gives Grierson extra week to repay £1m of fraudulent expenses
Hogan Lovells has agreed to extend by a week the deadline for former partner Christopher Grierson to repay £1m in false expenses.
The senior litigator, who had been a respected partner at the firm for more than 30 years before the fraudulent expense claims were uncovered last month, was originally due to repay the full amount to the firm by last Friday (27 May).
A Hogan Lovells spokesman confirmed the firm had now given Grierson until this Friday (3 June) to repay the money. The spokesman declined to comment further.
Grierson, 59, was dismissed from the Hogan Lovells partnership on 11 May after a regular checking procedure discovered he had been claiming false expenses, most of which were airfares, for four years (17 May 2011).
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has launched an investigation into the false claims and Hogan Lovells’ expense checking procedures, but the firm has not yet reported the matter to the police (23 May 2011).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (21)
Anonymous | 1-Jun-2011 2:36 pm
"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....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
hartley ambrose | 1-Jun-2011 3:04 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Interested Observer | 1-Jun-2011 4:09 pm
I suspect that there will be a lot more enthusiasm for reporting the matter to the police if he doesn't pay up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kim Kardashian | 1-Jun-2011 5:33 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
1890 Partnership Fan | 1-Jun-2011 6:37 pm
@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.....)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
You cannot be serious! | 2-Jun-2011 9:22 am
@ 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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City Gent | 2-Jun-2011 9:49 am
"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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Jun-2011 10:20 am
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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Jun-2011 1:01 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kourtney Kardashian | 2-Jun-2011 1:29 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment