The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Ince & Co has been hit with a sex and disability discrimination claim from a former reinsurance lawyer who left the firm last April.
Ramit Hacco-Cohn, who was dismissed by Ince & Co in April 2004 for alleged gross misconduct, claims that her former firm repeatedly failed to make adjustments for her disability and after discovering she was pregnant sacked her unlawfully.
Hacco-Cohn, who suffers from dyslexia, secured an important step in her battle when the Woburn Place Employment Tribunal ruled on 2 February that she was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Hacco-Cohn alleges that when she returned to work after a back injury and upon Ince & Co discovering she was pregnant, the firm replaced her usual workload with elementary menial tasks. She also alleges that Ince & Co removed her proofreading support, which was essential because of her dyslexia.
Meanwhile, Ince & Co alleges breaches of confidentiality because Hacco-Cohn asked her husband, a former Berwin Leighton Paisner lawyer, for help with proofreading and grammar.
However, Daniel Cohn argued: “My wife is dyslexic and turned to me for help with proofreading. I helped her purely in my capacity as her husband.”
Russell Jones litigation partner Paul Daniels, who is advising Hacco-Cohn, said: “[Ince & Co] has acted in breach of employment law designed to protect staff from such discrimination and unreasonable working practices.”
A spokesperson for Ince & Co said: “It would be inappropriate to comment, except to say that we have only had two days of a 10-day hearing. It is surprising that Russell Jones & Walker have chosen to comment at an early stage. No evidence has yet been heard on the discrimination and unfair dismissal issues which are before the tribunal.”