Kennedys rogue partner fiasco sparks legal battle

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • Are Kennedys going to release another video?
    All together now... "Money, it's a crime"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reading this article, it sounds like Kennedys didn't even inform the client that the Partner was being investigated/struck off!? All round great client care by Kennedys. The SDT article (link below) is an interesting read - Kennedys are claiming approximately £5.2million from Mr Lloyd Cooper for "payments misapplied or potentially misapplied". It would be interesting to know if this client's money is part of that £5.2million claimed.
    http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10964.2012.Lloyd.Cooper.pdf

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Who are regulating these people?
    If this was a high street firm, the shutters would be down and the SRA would be all over it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Who IS regulating these people.... tsk, there is no adherence to proper grammar today. 'Anonymous' is probably a lawyer from one of those "high street firms"...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Equity partners with no fee earning responsibilities should have enough time to do a feature length film/musical about this one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I do love people that put three dots after sentences... It does create a degree of suspense...Especially when they are grammar nazis...
    I agree with Anonymous' comment though - i.e. that the previous Anonymous is probably a lawyer from one of those "high street firms" being shut down and heavily regulated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To be fair to Kennedy's it is appropriatte that the client proves their right to the funds if they came from 3 seperate sources as they allege- no I don't work there! We don't know if this client is looking to 'exploit' the incident or has a legitimate claim on the monies.
    As we all know the devil is usually in the detail on these things. Its easy to throw stones but a potential rogue partner may be lurking somewhere in any of our firms without our knowledge, so lets see how this pans out before diving in feet first.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In fact it was four dots at one point. As it is standard that an ellipsis has three dots we have a mistake on the part of the grammar police. To what is the world coming?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To the "Anonymous" Kennedys employee - it is also wonderful to see a firm finally standing up for one of its rogue partners and defending that partners' actions. Too often firms seek to distance themselves from their rogue partners' behaviours and make amends with any clients that have been affected - but good for Kennedys for sticking up for the eloquently named Mr Lloyd-Cooper.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Richard, I doubt that anyone who works/ed at Kennedys would be likely to write the firm's name as Kennedy's, whatever their predeliction to errant apostrophes. (And no, I don't work their either, nor ever have done).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Their?
    Oh no.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Richard, sorry to jump on the grammar police bandwagon but "and defending that partners' actions. Too often firms seek to distance themselves from their rogue partners' behaviours" the first partner is single so should be "that partner's actions"! "Behaviours" is also questionable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (12)