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.
CLIVE MILLER HINDLE, 46, admitted 1973, practising at material time in partnership as Hindle Campbell, North Shields, cleared of allegations of unbefitting conduct. Allegations were that: he acted in a manner which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair his acting in clients' best interests and/or good repute of the respondent or profession; that he acted contrary to principles of Law Society 1990 guide to professional conduct of solicitors; that he obtained loans from client without ensuring client was separately represented. Tribunal told allegations followed formation in 1986 of property development partnership between respondent and two others and later involvement of business woman who invested money in venture but who failed to heed respond-ent's advice to take independent legal advice. Tribunal said it was wholly unsatisfactory for solicitor to enter business venture with client without taking the most careful steps to ensure that client was protected, particularly in terms of advice. They considered Hindle, who admitted acting unwisely in matters where there was potential conflict of interest with client, had acted foolishly. However, they did not consider he was guilty of unbefitting conduct.
STUART SAMUEL GARCIA, 50, admitted 1977, practising on own account as Stuart Garcia & Co, London N1, fined u3,000 and ordered to pay u1,130 costs. Allegations substantiated he was responsible for excessive delay in submitting bills and papers for taxation in legal aid cases resulting in counsel not receiving fees within a reasonable time of submission of fee notices. Also alleged he failed to comply with Solicitors Complaints Bureau decision. Tribunal told some of the fee notes which remained unpaid had been left for eight or nine years. Tribunal accepted there had been no dishonesty, but considered he had been inefficient.
MARTIN JAMES SALSBURY, 62, admitted 1960, practising as MJ Salsbury and Co, Bedford, fined u500 and ordered to pay costs of u1,100. Allegations substantiated he practised while not holder of current practising certificate, practised without having paid indemnity contributions, failed to deliver accountants report in compliance with rules. Tribunal told Salsbury admitted practising for year and a half without holding practising certificate and that from 1989 when business in conveyancing work declined he found himself with insufficient money to pay indemnity contribution.