Knowles under pressure after DLA kept in dark over personal LawVest stake

  • Print
  • Comments (26)

Readers' comments (26)

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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?
    Lets see if the board has any b***s.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You can take a Northerner from the North......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (26)