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.
Christopher Charles Jupe, 56, admitted 1966 and Graham John Parr, 51, admitted 1971, practising at material time in partnership as Blair Eton Portsmouth, respectively struck off and rebuked. Allegations against both substantiated that they had acted improperly in conflict of interest situations and, against Jupe, that he had been convicted of offences of false accounting and reckless inducement to make a deposit and sentenced to a suspended prison term. Tribunal said there was conflict of interest between clients of the firm, one of whom was a borrower, the other a lender. The default of a borrower exposed the breaches that rules of professional conduct and Solicitors Accounts Rules were designed to avoid. Tribunal could distinguish Parr’s position from that of Jupe’s because of his position as a full equity partner, unable to avoid liability. He was engaged only in the field of criminal law, and spent much time in court. He accepted Jupe’s assurances that all was well and had suffered financially as a result. The tribunal did not consider him culpable.
Tanvir Hussain, employed between June 1995 and 11 July 1996 as clerk in the criminal law department of Aurangzeb Iqbal Bradford, as from 25 November 1997, banned from further employment by a solicitor without the permission of the Law Society and ordered to pay a contribution towards costs. Allegation substantiated that he had been party to acts or defaults which rendered him undesirable for employment by a solicitor in connection with his practice. While employed by another firm of solicitors the clerk had written to a client of his former employer, criticising his former principal and inviting the client to recommend clients to him. The letter was couched in intemperate terms and was coupled with obscenities. The tribunal considered the letter inappropriate because it may have served to impugn the reputation of the profession as a whole. The tribunal did not consider it to be the highest breach and, although it made the order sought, ordered him to pay only a proportion of the costs.