Law Soc, SRA found wanting as Napier takes the fall for failings

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • If Napier went to these extreme lengths to gag Private Eye, how many other individuals has Napier misled or “ruined” by abusing his level of authority?. Surely the fact that Mr.Ford has stood up against him and finally reached this far in uncovering the REAL truth... many more cases are going to come to light as a result of this ... So this now begs the question: Did Napier stand down from the LSB because he has more to hide....?? I suspect this is not a one of “accidental” case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • By the looks of things in the latest Private Eye issue No 1238. It seems Michael Napier is going to have a hard time convincing the SRA that “Saint Mike” has got nothing to hide regarding the conflict of interest concerning Esso/Exxon. The article clearly shows all the horrifying reasons why Napier has gone to such lengths in keeping this story well and truly gagged for all these years….

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A flood of posts on the Lawyer.com bulletin board in support of disgraced former Law Society president and Irwin Mitchell senior partner, Michael Napier, caused the website to crash last night, it emerged.
    Thousands of messages of support, comparing Napier – who was shamed into resigning from the Legal Services Board after he not only ignored a conflict of interest leading to a complaint to the Law Society, but also attempted to gag Private Eye magazine from reporting on the investigation into the complaint - to Mother Teresa, Gandhi and star of 1970s show ‘Seaside Special’, ventriloquist Roger de Courcey, among others, flooded in, causing the main bulletin board server to explode in flames after a firewall program failed.
    “The Lawyer’s firewall just wasn’t set up to deal with this kind of thing,” explained independent web consultant and underground blogger Reg Nietzsche. “A tide of obsequious, nauseating and hyperbolic rubbish like this will fry almost any self-respecting software. It made me want to Ralph up my lunch.”
    “This is typical press smear-mongering,” said Sheffield lawyer Hartley Anonymous, one of the thousands of Anonymous posters on the board. “Michael Napier is a saint, an angel and, now, a martyr,” Anonymous added. “That man has done so much good for the legal community, if he asked me to sacrifice a child or be bound and helpless while he forced several Thai prostitutes to disappear a few traffic cones in a manner likely to attract criminal prosecution, I would do so without question or hesitation.”
    Reports that a disused railway shed in Doncaster was filled with deferred Irwin Mitchell trainees furiously posting the messages have been flatly denied by the firm. A spokesman said: “Do you really want to get on the wrong side of one of the best litigation firms in the country?” and we don’t. They’re fab.
    A spokesman for the Vatican confirmed that Napier’s canonization was imminent. “Here at the Catholic Church, we welcome powerful individuals who like to overlook certain key facts and attempt to cover up damaging publicity. He’ll fit right in.”

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A lawyer of his seniority and success claiming that he didn't know Exxon and Esso were in anyway connected - the whole thing stinks. You only need to know a little bit about the way in which Exxon conducts its business, both in and out of court, to guess that there's a lot more to this story that anyone is allowed to publish, yet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This story is uttelry Horrifying - Michael Napier has discgraced himself and the legal profession by abusing his power in this way. I hope for Mr Ford's sake that the SRA' s re-investigation in to Napiers conduct is carried out honestly AND NOT COVERED UP

    See the real truth behind this story:

    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/news.php?issue=1238

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In Michael Napier's defence; it's important to keep a sense of proportion about what Private Eye have written, in their usual style, and also to hear the other side (as one would wish to do). Napier's entitled to use such tactics as he wishes to defend himself; it's for the courts to decide whether these are legitimate. Edey and the CA decided not; he abided by that decision, and he's entitled to defend himself before the SRA at that re-hearing.

    It's easy to satirise the support for Napier but that support is real and springs from many people, unconnected with this dispute, who have seen the thousands of hours Napier has spent working on pro bono issues, or for the profession's benefit, throughout his career. One isolated incident shouldn't damn that career or that committment.

    Without Napier, I doubt 50% of the people employed by Irwin Mitchell would be working there at all, that's credit to his business acumen. Again, this seems to have been overlooked.

    Without Napier, the Society would have completely collapsed post Kamlesh Bahl; he restored it to a functioning organisation and worked hard for the whole profession in his year.

    Some proportionality from the posters would be called for.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A “sense of proportion” is a conflict of interest over not one case, but hundreds of cases involving EXXON and Irwin Mitchell.....
    Napier knew exactly “who” and “what” Exxon and Esso were and what relation they have to one another…..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The whole system of the Law Society complaints department is flawed, if there is not mountains of money involved then the case is not strong enough for the SRA. A solicitor telling proven lies about a case, about his client and to the LSC are not considered bad. So he can continue to practice.... shocking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (8)