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.
John Peter Mansfield, litigation clerk with Charles Smith & Co, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, banned from working for any further solicitors without written consent of the Law Society. Allegations substantiated he was given a suspended nine-month prison sentence and ordered to pay £330 costs after conviction at Luton Crown Court in July 1995 of procuring execution of a valuable security by deception and two offences of making false instruments. Tribunal told offences occurred in connection with personal property purchase. He obtained £90,000 valuation but then supported mortgage application with forged valuation report that the property was worth £145,000.
Siobhan Mairie Lomasney, admitted 1980, practising at material times as Lomasney & Co, London W1, fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £5,648 costs. Allegations substantiated she wrongly drew client account money, used client money for her own purposes, failed to keep properly written accounts, improperly retained legal aid payments in office account. Tribunal told allegations did not involve dishonesty on the part of Lomasney who was under stress.
Peter Elvidge, of Plymouth, financial services adviser with Howard & Over, banned from working for solicitors without written consent of Law Society. Allegations substantiated that among other things he failed to keep proper investment business records. Tribunal told four partners in the firm had also been rebuked by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau for not maintaining proper standard of compliance with the rules. Tribunal concerned that partners in the firm had been rebuked by the complaints bureau while their clerk had been required to face allegations before the Tribunal.
Thomas Edmund Michael McManus, admitted 1980, practising at material times as Michael McManus & Co, Rochdale, reprimanded. Allegations substantiated he failed to comply with professional undertaking, failed to reply to correspondence from solicitors, failed to reply to correspondence from Solicitors Complaints Bureau. McManus previously before Tribunal in June 1994 when he was fined £500 for practising uncertificated, wrongly drawing client funds, improperly publishing on his stationary that he was authorised to carry on investment business. In addition to reprimand, Tribunal recommended that condition should be placed on respondent's practice certificate.