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.
Stephen John Cansick, 49, admitted 1974, practising at material time on own account as Stephen Cansick, London N6, suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £3,496 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to keep properly written accounts, drew money out of client account other than in accordance with the rules, used clients' funds for his own purpose, misappropriated clients' funds, failed to deliver accountant's reports on time and failed to comply with a professional undertaking. Tribunal accepted that accountancy breaches and failure to deliver report was result of Cansick's inability to pay a book-keeper or accountant. It also accepted that use of clients' funds did not disclose any dishonesty. It noted the undertaking had now been complied with. But tribunal said that until he set right his failure to deliver accountant's reports, he was still in breach. It felt unable to put a time limit on his suspension until he put his house in order.
Tony Frederick Foss, 49, admitted 1980, and Clinton James Worsfold, 54, admitted 1974, practising at material time in partnership as Garner Foss & Worsfold, Uxbridge, fined £1,500 each and ordered jointly to pay costs of £1,617. Allegations substantiated that they failed to pay counsel's fees as they became due and were guilty of unreasonable delay in the conduct of professional business. They had originally appeared before the tribunal in March when judgment was reserved to allow them time to settle the matter of counsel's fees. The tribunal regretted that they were unable to demonstrate that all the outstanding fees had been settled. However, it recognised that they had taken steps to put matters right although they still remained in continuing breach of their duty to pay counsel's fees. The tribunal said if they were brought before it again because of unpaid fees it was unlikely that they would be treated with leniency.