Irwin Mitchell boss steps down from LSB after Private Eye complaint

  • Print

Readers' comments (15)

  • Max Barker: The point that James Price was arguing- that there was a duty of confidentiality between client and lawyer- didn't have weight with Eady and the CA, but I don't believe they were censuring his conduct per se, merely saying that it was in the public interest that the SLCC's decision be made public. So it isn't a judicial reprimand. However, there were regulatory failings in the SRA's handling, so it goes to a re-determination by the SRA. If they decide the conduct's indeed objectionable, Napier may be before the SDT, I imagine.
    J'Accuse: Cheap shot. Knocking the reputation of a man who has demonstrably dedicated 35 or more years of his life- as above- to working with others is unfair.
    An isolated incident, which has yet to be reheard, shouldn't, under any view, damn him absolutely. He's entitled to be presumed innocent until that rehearing.
    In terms of the CBE, ask the Cabinet Office, but he'd be entitled to the benefit of the doubt if the matter was ongoing, and an appeal if not. A reprimand's a professional punishment, but not so severe as to disentitle an honour.
    If unprofessional conduct's an issue, then arguably England's sportmen on the lash would be in more trouble. I don't see anyone asking Freddie Flintoff for his MBE back after the "Fredalo" incident. Or Stevie G after his night out in Southport, etc, etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely part of the problem here is the egregious (mis)use of confidentiality laws to try and gag a free press? A man so sure of the integrity of his reputation need not use a High Court injunction to prevent open discussion of potential mistakes and failings, which might have been honestly made - but which after the extent of these desperate attempts to keep them out of the papers leave a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely Napier could not have admitted to the Ministry of Justice ( MOJ ) that he had been officially reprimanded and was at the centre of an investigation concerning his professional misconduct when he accepted the job directly from Jack Straw as the Legal Services Board - how on earth could this have occurred?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More important to me in this case is the age-long complicity of the Law Society in protecting their leadership of any form of investigations while they routinely destroy many others most especially of ethnic background in the profession. It would be nice for Mr Napier to have a bite at the cherry on behalf of his peers and cohorts at the Law Society at least for once

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • looks like Irwin Mitchell haven’t learned their lessons, But I can see why Natwest would use them!

    http://irwinmitchellscam.blogspot.com/2010/02/irwin-mitchell.html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

  • Print