Irwin Mitchell boss steps down from LSB after Private Eye complaint
Irwin Mitchell senior partner Michael Napier has resigned from the Legal Services Board (LSB) after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) re-opened an investigation into him and the firm.
Napier has been instrumental in shaping the future regulation of the profession and worked closely with the Civil Justice Council (CJC) in helping the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to decide the terms of the Legal Services Act (LSA).
Last week the Court of Appeal rejected attempts by Napier and Irwin Mitchell to stop satirical magazine Private Eye publishing details of a serious complaint against him and the firm.
The complaint concerned pro bono work done by Napier on behalf of the complainant, a barrister called Michael Ford, who Napier represented when he fought his suspension from the Hong Kong bar.
Ford alleged that Napier had a serious conflict of interest while acting on the case, which took place five years after Ford’s suspension.
The complainant went to the Law Society, which upheld his allegations, but said they were not so serious that Napier and Irwin Mitchell should be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Not satisfied with this outcome, Ford reported the case to the legal ombudsman to force it to review how the Law Society had handled his case. Because Napier had held a prominent position at the law society the case was looked at by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC).
The SLCC criticised the Law Society for failing to adequately reprimand Napier and Irwin Mitchell and asked the SRA to re-open the case.
When Private Eye attempted to publish details of the SLCC’s report, Carter Ruck instructed 5 Raymond Buildings’ James Price QC to argue that under the law of confidentiality details of the report should be kept confidential.
Mr Justice Eady rejected that argument and when Irwin Mitchell attempted to appeal his ruling it was upheld by Lord Justices Hughes, Toulson and Sullivan, who rejected arguments that the client owed a duty of confidentiality to his lawyers.
The MoJ today said that Napier would resign from the LSB while he concentrates on the SRA investigation.
In a letter to the LSB Napier wrote: “Recent press coverage about a long running complaint against me and my firm concerning disputed allegations, to be reinvestigated by the SRA, mean that I’ll no longer be able to give the time and attention required to be an effective board member of the LSB.
“This is a great disappointment to me because I’ve been pleased to have been part of the team that has set up the LSB.”
In response, LSB chairman David Edmonds said: “I fully appreciate the reasons. I more than anyone understand how much the creation of the LSB owes
to Mike’s unstinting support to me as chairman. We shall miss his vast experience.”
The news will come as a blow to the LSB, which is currently grappling with the Law Society over its plans to regulate alternative business structures (ABS).
The Law Society is planning to challenge the LSB’s attempt to have the framework for the regulation of ABS in place by 2011, claiming that would be too soon.
Napier is widely seen as a diplomat who can bridge the gaps between the LSB and the Law Society, of which he was president in 2000. He also engages with the MoJ, having sat on the CJC committee, and is pro bono envoy to the Attorney General Baroness Scotland.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Anonymous | 28-May-2009 4:58 pm
I feel this is a great tragedy for both Michael Napier personally, and for the LSB. Having worked with Mike, I know him to be extremely consciencious; he has been unsparing in his outreach efforts for the profession; whether for the Law Society, APIL, Irwin Mitchell, or the Civil Justice Council. His honorary QC was richly merited, and he will feel this blow to his pride deeply.
However, the SRA's handling of the investigation, and the complaint made against Napier had demonstrable flaws, and the Court of Appeal's judgement must be conclusive; the SRA must re-investigate, and the details published.
Mike's firm support for the rule of law has been a hallmark of his career. The public interest in justice being done, and being seen to be done, applies equally to him, as it does to the many hundreds of people he has helped.
He has made the right decision in stepping down to contest the allegations made by Mr Ford before the SRA.
I hope that he will abide by the spirit of the ruling in accepting there is a public interest in knowing about these claims. Conflicts of interest are serious; one only needs remember the O'Brien decision to know this. I hope he would have made the decision to resign with the grace that has characterised his career.
If the investigation is upheld, like O'Brien, I know he will do the decent thing for the firm. Given O'Brien's rehabilitation is now complete and he accepted his own penalty in a manner befitting both himself and Freshfields, I hope that Napier- and Irwin Mitchell would take note of this precedent.
I accept, however, that Mike may also want his day before the SRA, like O'Brien did, (although in O'Brien's case, before a compromise was reached). If so, (and I hope Mr Ford's complaint is groundless), I hope Mike will continue to remain as active for Irwin Mitchell and in support of pro bono as possible.
That message- of over thirty-odd years of work for ordinary people- should not be hidden by one complaint- serious though this is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Robinson | 29-May-2009 9:36 am
In my 25 years in practice I have never known any solicitor as passionatley committed to the interests of his clients as Mike Napier. I hope that one incident, arising from his generosity in acting for a client for no fee, will not further derail an illustious career. I wish him all the best.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-May-2009 11:51 am
I am sure I am not the only colleague or ex-colleague of Mike's who would point to him as an example for all that's good and ethical in this sector.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Howard Knight | 29-May-2009 2:30 pm
I first met Michael in 1972, when he was the leading light in setting up and providing his services - pro bono - for the Free Legal Information Service in Sheffield.
Subsequently, I have been involved in a number of cases with Michael - several pro bono, including to the ECHR.
I have never had cause to believe other than that he has acted with the highest ethical standards and integrity at all times. He has always been prepared to go the extra mile on behalf of those he has represented.
Isn't there some awful irony that the challenges he is having to address arise from pro bono representation?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Gilbert | 1-Jun-2009 8:24 pm
I have known Mike for nearly ten years and consider him to be a lawyer and a man of the highest quality. Steadfast, loyal, thoughtful and brave...it is an enormous shame that this matter could not have had a more proportionate outcome...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Jun-2009 3:35 pm
Michael Napier is an unremitting champion for true justice and a gentleman. He has delivered more benefit, to more people, than most realise - whilst remaining humble and never seeking glory for glory's sake. Truly a man of integrity, charm and generosity.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2009 4:32 pm
Quite how this row over the publication of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s report escalated to the point that Michael Napier felt that he had no other option but to step down is a mystery?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Max Barker | 3-Jun-2009 9:09 pm
It is interesting that so many people are so supportive of such an apparent champion where his judicial peers found the conduct unsustainable and where he now considers it best to step down. To some it would seem obvious as to why he felt it necessary to step down given the various judicial desions from the oft maligned, particularly by Private Eye, Eady and his superiors. To others what a wonderful chap and pillar of integrity he is whose decision to walk is puzzling.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
J'Accuse | 4-Jun-2009 11:54 am
Iago summed this saga up best in Othello...I think the line goes something like:
"Reputation...oft gained without merit and lost without deserving"
'nough said
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Jun-2009 12:35 pm
How can Michael Napier have been awarded a CBE in 2005 for his work promoting pro bono if he was under investigation and received a reprimand in the same month as being awarded it. Was his reprimand or the fact that he was being investigated ever disclosed???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment