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.
A former partner in short-lived City firm Malkin Janners has failed in the Court of Appeal with his claim for damages against 10 of his previous partners, seven years after the firm fell apart.
However, Robert Hurst has not ruled out taking the case to the House of Lords, if his current attempts at negotiations fail.
He originally launched the action against his 19 other partners after Malkin Janners demerged in 1990, less than a year after it was formed. Eight of the partners have subsequently settled and one is no longer a defendant.
The claim against Hurst's colleagues was made on a number of different points including wrongful repudiation of the partnership and misuse of expenses by the firm.
Although the judges rejected the appeal, Lord Justice Hobhouse found in favour of Hurst's wrongful repudiation claim. He said: "The defendants do not come with clean hands."
Michael Simmons, one of the co-defendants and former senior partner at Malkin Janners, said Hurst had "received a bloody nose on all points".
Simmons, who has been a partner at Finers since the break-up, said that he felt relief at "finally having seen off a thorn in his side".