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.
Anthony Stephen Baker, 42, admitted 1980, practising at material times as Anthony Baker, Birmingham, suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £789 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to deliver accountant's reports. The tribunal was told that Baker failed to provide report for whole period of his sole practice between July 1992 and June 1993.
Christopher John Phillips, solicitor's clerk, banned from working for any other solicitors without written consent from Law Society and ordered to pay £1,078 costs. Allegations substantiated that he entered into business arrangement with Messrs Baileys (solicitors) of Buckinghamshire, holding himself out to be a qualified solicitor. Also that he joined the firm of Chandler Ray, Buckingham, holding himself out to be a legal executive when in fact he was registered as a student with the Institute of Legal Executives. In the course of his work he witnessed documents describing himself as a legal executive and as a solicitor. Tribunal said that it was a serious matter for an unqualified clerk to represent himself as being qualified. In making the order against Phillips, it issued a reminder to solicitors employing staff that they were responsible for making a full check on the bona fides of those they took on before allowing them to have conduct of client matters.
Albert Andrew Vanderbilt King, 49, admitted 1976, practising at material times as Van King & Co, Letchworth, fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £736 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to comply with professional undertaking, was responsible for unreasonable delay in the delivery of client papers and deeds, and was guilty of unreasonable delay in the conduct of professional business. Tribunal was told that the complaints concerned undertakings relating to property transactions. King was previously before the tribunal in February 1995 when he was fined £1,000 for failing to comply with accounting rules and for wrongful use of client money. Tribunal said that the allegations of delay and breach of undertakings were extremely serious.