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.
ANITA BOSE, 54, admitted 1983, practised at material times on own account as Lipman Bose & Co, and Lipman Bose & Maharaj both of London NW11, struck off and ordered to pay u3,665 costs. Allegations substantiated she wrongly drew and used money from client account, failed to honour professional undertakings and failed to keep accounts properly. Tribunal told Bose admitted minimum liability of just under u400,000 to two building society clients. While respondent not accused of dishonesty, money was said to have been used to cover gaps in client account. Bose said she had suffered serious health problems and had to cope with serious shortages in client account of practice she had taken over. She was previously before tribunal in 1993 when she was fined u3,000 after allegations were substantiated she had failed to keep proper accounts and had drawn client money for her own purposes. In the present case tribunal said she used client money without any regard at all for its proper purpose and had breached clear undertakings given by her without proper regard for the gravity of what she was doing.
BRIAN DONALD HARPER, 49, admitted 1972, practised at material times as Harper Brodie & Co, Putney, initially with partner and latterly as sole practitioner, fined u2,500 and ordered to pay u3,172 costs. Allegations substantiated he wrongly drew and used client money and failed to keep properly written books. Tribunal told it was accepted no client had suffered losses and it was submitted he had been guilty of "muddle, incompetence and failure" to ensure his accounts and other regulatory matters were in order rather than dishonesty. Harper said he had now put his house in order and asked the tribunal to give him credit for this. He was previously before tribunal in 1993 when he was fined u2,000 following substantiation of allegations he failed to reply promptly or adequately to correspondence from the SCB. Tribunal said they were concerned to find him before them again so soon and did not consider him fit to be a sole practitioner.
ESTHER MARGARET WISBEY, solicitor's clerk, banned from working for further solicitors without written Law Society consent. Tribunal told that between 1988 and 1991 Wisbey worked as conveyancing clerk for Jacobs & Reeves of Winton, Dorset. The firm discovered that for about one year prior to her leaving, she had been taking small sums of money from accounts. A total of u7,639 had been claimed on the fidelity insurance. Wisbey was said to have been dishonest on both her own behalf and that of her co-habitee. Tribunal said a solicitor's clerk who had access to firm accounts was in a position of trust and that taking money was a serious breach of trust.