Knowles under pressure after DLA kept in dark over personal LawVest stake By Margaret Taylor 27 February 2012 00:04 17 December 2015 13:38 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 27 February 2012 at 08:56 How very “Halliwells” of him…… Reply Link Corporate lawyer 27 February 2012 at 09:25 Why would you invest in a new venture without any right of veto/pre-emption before the addition of new investors? Very strange. Reply Link City cynic 27 February 2012 at 10:20 WTAF? It’s usually Stockholm syndrome with DLA partners and it’s not like them to make a fuss. Where’s this bravery come from? Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 10:27 When individuals start investing in other businesses outside their own it raises all sorts of questions about ownership. The challenge for any partner investing in an ABS, be it their own or an external venture, is to manage potential conflict of interest. The best way is to be transparent and clear about level of external investment, or you risk uproar and may face some very uncomfortable questions. Reply Link George Osborne 27 February 2012 at 11:53 @Anonymous 10.27, you make a good point. How many law firms are applying for ABS? Are they prepared for the amount of transparency they’ll have to show? Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 13:24 hat the investment was made by Knowles and his cronies after the firm’s investment was made and without openly declaring it smacks of dishonesty. These people are lawyers and cannot claim ignorance of the law or their obligations to their fellow partners under their partnership deed. Knowles should consider resigning as managing partner for so blatantly flouting his obligations. Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 13:33 The investment by Knowles is a blatant disregard of an obvious conflict of interest. Failing to disclose it shows a lack of good faith in his dealings with his fellow partners. Time to step down. Knowles has always treated DLA as if it was his to do with as he chose fit and with disregard of, and little respect to, his fellow partners and/or their opinions. Every leader has had their day at some point and then its time to go. DLa should find itself a leader with integrity. Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 14:01 Am I going to be the only one to make the obvious point that most of the DLA partners wouldn’t even have a job if it wasn’t for Nigel Knowles? Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 14:20 Every law firm that has fallen behind DLA in the pecking order is desperate to wade in and give their views. Some of the big firms now looking over their shoulder are doing the same. It’s mainly driven by jealousy. Nobody would be chipping in with their 2 cents if this was happening at a firm like Dickinson Dees. Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 14:42 reminds me of Hammonds Direct Be careful what you wish for Nigel Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 15:46 This episode, and the comments made about it, would appear to demonstrate (yet again) that some basic ethical understanding of one’s duties to one’s firm and one’s partners needs to be incorporated into the continuing education program of senior lawyers. Reply Link That was quick 27 February 2012 at 16:19 When LawVest launched to much fanfare a number of people said they wondered if the whole thing would blow up in everyone’s faces. I didn’t give the doubters much credence, but they were right. And it took exactly one week for it to happen…. That was quick. Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2012 at 16:34 One wonders who advised LawVest on its establishment/funding etc. Surely not DLA, one would hope. Reply Link Ashley Balls 28 February 2012 at 01:38 Time will tell if this was a sound idea – just poorly executed. However, just may be the investors consider their actions independent of the partnership. If that were the case where did the DLA ‘association’ come from? Reply Link Anonymous 28 February 2012 at 02:48 Very dodgy. Knighthood in danger a la Fre Le Shred. Reply Link Anonymous 28 February 2012 at 09:15 Like HammondsDirect? Where is the gross miss-management, over charging of customers and failure to disclose payments to estate agents to name but a few of HD’s errors. Reply Link Anonymous 28 February 2012 at 09:49 And who advised Karl Chapman that “the share register of LawVest is a confidential matter”? Surely not DLA? The register of members is open to inspection – Companies (Company Records) Regulations 2008. Reply Link Anonymous 28 February 2012 at 11:24 Tony Angel seeing his moment of opportunity to seize control? Reply Link It was good when it lasted 28 February 2012 at 13:32 Did Tony A back the wrong horse and will he leave the partnership this week along with NIgel only time will tell. Who is sitting in the wings at DLA to take it to the next stage. The question is who runs DLA is it a few chosen partners who oversee billing machines/ team leaders/ junior partners call them what you want. Is this another Arthur Anderson moment ! Reply Link James Hill 28 February 2012 at 14:36 Law firms are full of moral midgets, this one just got caught. Reply Link Rosie Scarlett 1 March 2012 at 12:42 How funny … Thatcher had her day, Blair had his day, Fred The Shred had his day and now Sir Nige looks as though he’s had his. He will, as sure as whiffs follow certain former Halliwells’ partners, have to resign and he will be remebered not as the man who created one of the world’s greattest law firms but as someone who lost contact with reality and actually started to beleive his own BS! Sad really. Reply Link Anonymous 2 March 2012 at 10:14 There goes his knighthood. Lawyers know what’s right and wrong so obfuscating things does not detract from what is bilindingly obvious. Sad way to end a career. Reply Link Disgruntled Partner 3 March 2012 at 18:35 In an ideal world Sir Nige would do the honourable thing. However, this is DLA and I doubt very much that he would have the gumption to be a bigger man. And there are plenty in the wings ready to take the firm forward in a more collegiate and open way. Reply Link Anonymous 5 March 2012 at 11:52 The larger law firms, even those not as large, have fairly specific conflict of interest and disclosure rules. Either DLA did not have such rules (which is a failure in risk management policy), or the master of the universe chose to ignore the rules. In any event, if this was not the master of the universe, he would have been out the door already, and it wouldn’t be a mere demotion. As to the comment that many DLA partners would not have their jobs but for the master of the universe, how severe would the infraction have to be before Nigey would be jettisoned? Perhaps that poster should offer his backside to Nigey – either that or it is a comment on the willingness of most to give up their integrity. Lets see if the board has any b***s. Reply Link Anonymous 6 March 2012 at 20:24 You can take a Northerner from the North…… Reply Link Anonymous 20 July 2012 at 13:06 As in the manner of a GCSE Law Exam (1) “they expect that smaller DLA Piper clients will begin to use LawVest.” (2 “he expressed shock that his action was being perceived as a conflict of interest.” Reconcile these two statements. What do you understand by “conflict of interest? How should this have been managed? What reputational issues are involved here? Do not write on both sides of the paper at once. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.