The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report is the only ranking of international law firms by litigation and arbitration revenue and is essential reading for anyone seeking to benchmark their litigation and dispute resolution practices...
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.
Richard David Andrade, 47, admitted 1973, practising at material time in partnership as Nicholas Barrett, London SW7, until 30 September 1992, and since October 1992 on own account as Andrade & Co, London SW7, struck off and ordered to pay costs. Allegations substantiated that he wrongly used client account money, failed to pay professional agents and failed to act in accordance with undertakings given by him in course of practice. The tribunal took note of his unfortunate circumstances but it was unable to ignore admitted breaches. It considered his use of client account to fall so far below standard of honesty required by profession that it was right for him to be struck off.
Raymond Tarling, 57, admitted 1974, practising at material time in partnership as Tarlings, Cheltenham, fined £250 and ordered to pay costs. Allegation substantiated that he failed to reply to correspondence and enquiry addressed to him by building society clients, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Complaint arose from work carried out by his partner who had admitted not dealing with correspondence, even though it had been addressed to Tarling. Tribunal noted mitigating circumstances but stated that no solicitor can abdicate responsibility for correspondence addressed by the Law Society.
Tyrone Jude Francis, 48, admitted 1976, practising at material time in partnership as Mathias Thomas & Lewis, Tenby, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay one half of the £845 costs. Allegation substantiated that he failed to reply to letters from solicitors and/or from Office for Supervision of Solicitors. Tribunal expressed dismay that this was his fifth appearance. It found the more serious of two allegations not to have been substantiated. Tribunal recognised that he was in a difficult position, having faced a criminal trial in respect of serious offences of which he was acquitted. He had also been facing proceedings and intervention by the Law Society.