Kennedys Kennedys rogue partner fiasco sparks legal battle By Katy Dowell 8 April 2013 00:08 17 December 2015 13:52 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 8 April 2013 at 10:52 Are Kennedys going to release another video? All together now… “Money, it’s a crime” Reply Link B Donesey 8 April 2013 at 12:07 Reading this article, it sounds like Kennedys didn’t even inform the client that the Partner was being investigated/struck off!? All round great client care by Kennedys. The SDT article (link below) is an interesting read – Kennedys are claiming approximately £5.2million from Mr Lloyd Cooper for “payments misapplied or potentially misapplied”. It would be interesting to know if this client’s money is part of that £5.2million claimed. http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10964.2012.Lloyd.Cooper.pdf Reply Link Anonymous 9 April 2013 at 10:20 Who are regulating these people? If this was a high street firm, the shutters would be down and the SRA would be all over it. Reply Link Anonymous 10 April 2013 at 14:31 Who IS regulating these people…. tsk, there is no adherence to proper grammar today. ‘Anonymous’ is probably a lawyer from one of those “high street firms”… Reply Link Happy people 10 April 2013 at 21:37 Equity partners with no fee earning responsibilities should have enough time to do a feature length film/musical about this one. Reply Link Richard 11 April 2013 at 00:25 I do love people that put three dots after sentences… It does create a degree of suspense…Especially when they are grammar nazis… I agree with Anonymous’ comment though – i.e. that the previous Anonymous is probably a lawyer from one of those “high street firms” being shut down and heavily regulated. Reply Link Anonymous 11 April 2013 at 13:48 To be fair to Kennedy’s it is appropriatte that the client proves their right to the funds if they came from 3 seperate sources as they allege- no I don’t work there! We don’t know if this client is looking to ‘exploit’ the incident or has a legitimate claim on the monies. As we all know the devil is usually in the detail on these things. Its easy to throw stones but a potential rogue partner may be lurking somewhere in any of our firms without our knowledge, so lets see how this pans out before diving in feet first. Reply Link Anonymous 11 April 2013 at 14:41 In fact it was four dots at one point. As it is standard that an ellipsis has three dots we have a mistake on the part of the grammar police. To what is the world coming? Reply Link Richard 12 April 2013 at 09:53 To the “Anonymous” Kennedys employee – it is also wonderful to see a firm finally standing up for one of its rogue partners and defending that partners’ actions. Too often firms seek to distance themselves from their rogue partners’ behaviours and make amends with any clients that have been affected – but good for Kennedys for sticking up for the eloquently named Mr Lloyd-Cooper. Reply Link Anita 12 April 2013 at 14:57 Richard, I doubt that anyone who works/ed at Kennedys would be likely to write the firm’s name as Kennedy’s, whatever their predeliction to errant apostrophes. (And no, I don’t work their either, nor ever have done). Reply Link Yoko Ono 15 April 2013 at 21:58 Their? Oh no. Reply Link Anonymous 17 April 2013 at 10:36 Richard, sorry to jump on the grammar police bandwagon but “and defending that partners’ actions. Too often firms seek to distance themselves from their rogue partners’ behaviours” the first partner is single so should be “that partner’s actions”! “Behaviours” is also questionable. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.