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.
Fatima Thobani, 41, admitted 1982, practising at material times as Fatima Thobani & Co, London NW6, fined £2,000. Allegations substantiated that she wrongly drew client money and used it for her own purposes, failed to pay funds received from clients in respect of undisbursed liabilities into a client account. Tribunal accepted Thobani's submissions that breaches of Accounts Rules had arisen through sloppy book-keeping and not because of any sinister intent. Further allegation that she failed to advise client on material facts was not substantiated.
Rognald Hatlem-Olsen, 52, admitted 1974, practising a material times as Hatlem-Olsen, Market Harborough, struck off and ordered to pay £1,522 costs. Allegations substantiated that he wrongly drew and used client money and failed to keep properly written accounts. Hatlem-Olsen was previously before tribunal in September 1994 when he was fined £500 after allegations were substantiated that he failed promptly to discharge personal liability for payment of counsel's fees. Tribunal told investigation accountant's report on Hatlem-Olsen's affairs revealed cash shortage of £29,795. Tribunal said that it was unable to avoid a finding that transfers leading to complaints had been made deliberately and, in the circumstances, had been made dishonestly. While they had sympathy for his domestic difficulties, they considered he should be struck off. An appeal has been lodged.
Michael Crawford Monument, 48, admitted 1978, practising at material times as Purdy & Holley, Aylsham, Norfolk, reprimanded and ordered to pay £1,898 costs. Allegation substantiated by virtue of making unwanted oral and physical advances of an intimate nature to clients. Monument, who is blind, acted in a way which compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair his duty to act in the best interests of the clients. Tribunal told there was evidence to suggest he had made unwanted advances towards two female clients who had complained. Tribunal said the allegation had not been contested but it was impressed by Monument's candour and remorse. It said his achievements in the face of great personal disability were remarkable.