The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. 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 James Coble, 36, admitted 1987, practising from April 1993 in partnership as Roger Brooker & Co in New London Road, Chelmsford, Essex, struck off and ordered to pay costs of £680. Allegation substantiated that he had been convicted of offences of dishonesty and sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court to eight months imprisonment. Tribunal said the damage which he had done to the reputation of the profession was incalculable.
Jennifer Griffiths, solicitors clerk of Thornton Heath, Surrey, employed at material time or otherwise associated with Peter Thompson, solicitor, of London SW9 and Hanoman & Co of Cheam, Surrey, banned from employment by any solicitor without written consent from the Law Society and ordered to pay costs of £2,831. Allegations substantiated that she removed documents belonging to clients, acted for clients of the firm without their knowledge, approval or authority and used forged note paper of the firm. Tribunal noted her assertion that she had carried out work complained of with the knowledge of her former employers. However, solicitors concerned said in evidence that she had acted without their consent or knowledge.
Martin Kwaku Ofosuthene, solicitor, (formerly a solicitor's clerk), 64, admitted 1991, and at material time a barrister employed by Stuart A West & Co, London EC1, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs. Allegations substantiated that he had been involved in acting for the purchaser in a property transaction in breach of the terms of an injunction in relation to the vendor for whom he also acted in matrimonial and wardship proceedings. He was also found to have failed to act towards another firm of solicitors with complete frankness and good faith. Tribunal considered there was no evidence he had attempted to mislead the court or the land registry. Nevertheless tribunal considered the financial penalty imposed should leave him in no doubt as to the unsatisfactory nature of his behaviour.