The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Simon James Rose, solicitors clerk, at material time employed by the Smith Partnership of Burton on Trent, banned from further employment by a solicitor without permission from the Law Society and ordered to pay £382 costs. Allegation substantiated that he acted in a way that involved conduct of such a nature that it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his practice, namely that through counsel he had misled the court as to the progress of the preparation for trial of the defence of a client facing serious criminal charges. He had resigned from his job with the Smith Partnership when confronted by his employers with the result of the enquiries they had made.
Paul Anthony Brown, 39, admitted 1988, at material time employed as assistant solicitor successively by Drysdale & Janes and Barnes & Taylor of Southend-on-Sea, struck off and ordered to pay costs of £3,231. Allegations substantiated that he had misled clients as to progress of matters under his control and had attempted to mislead his employers as to his conduct of clients' affairs. Tribunal suspended the order for 28 days to give him time to close down his sole practice as Paul Brown & Co, of Westcliffe on Sea, Essex in an orderly fashion and arrange for his clients to be represented by other solicitors. The tribunal said solicitors must maintain high standards of probity, integrity and trustworthiness. It was sympathetic to the not inconsiderable problems he had suffered with his health and the personal and domestic difficulties which he and his wife had encountered. However, the tribunal could not find any circumstances that would serve to mitigate his actions to such an extent that it could consider any other penalty.