The Lawyer Africa Elite 2014 features an in-depth look at 46 leading independent firms’ strategies in 15 key sub-Saharan jurisdictions, as well as the views of in-house counsel from some of Africa’s largest companies... 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.
Barnard James Ewart, practising on own account between May 1988 and January 1995 as Ewart & Co, Leeds, and from January 1995 in partnership as Jackson Heath, fined £1,250 and ordered to pay £1,962 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to comply with a decision of the Conduct Committee of the Adjudication and Appeals Committee, failed to deliver accountant's report on time, failed to keep properly written up books and acted where his own interests conflicted with those of his clients. Tribunal noted he was also fined £500 in May 1996 for not having properly written up books, but matters reflected his personal difficulties and the tribunal took the view that the public would not benefit from his removal from practice, noting that he had not been dishonest.
Nestor Endimion Cummings-John, 51, admitted 1985, practising at material time on own account as Cummings-John & Co, London SW17, struck off and ordered to pay £2,266 costs. Allegation substantiated that he been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor after being convicted of several offences of dishonesty involving "mortgage fraud" and had been sentenced to two years imprisonment. His application to appeal to the House of Lords was refused, three judges having refused to certify that a point of law of general public importance was involved.
Patrick Karel James Kucek, 53, admitted 1973, practising at material time on own account as Farrells, London W1, suspended from practice for three years and ordered to pay £3,000 costs. Tribunal told he abandoned his firm on 23 October 1992. Allegations substantiated that he failed to keep properly written up books, wrongly permitted money to be drawn from client account, acted improperly in conflict of interest situation and failed to pay counsel's fees. Tribunal said allegations represented serious failures but not dishonesty. Tribunal bore in mind that he was drinking heavily and that this may have affected his judgement.