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.
A former Stewarts Law litigation partner who was struck off after a private prosecution has turned to Fountain Court’s Timothy Dutton QC to fight the ruling in the Adminstrative Court next month.
Partner Andrew Shaw was struck off at a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in February when former New York-based investment banker Geoffrey Logue brought a private application against him (19 February 2013).
He will fight the decision in a public appeal on the 10 December 2013 when the case will effectively be re-tried. Dutton has been instructed by Mayer Brown partner William Glassey. Earlier this week Dutton was at the SDT defending two Addleshaw Goddard partners who were accused of ‘misdescribing’ disbursements. The pair Emmett Peters and David Wilson were ordered to pay £5,000 each in fines despite the action bearing no reflection on their integrity (5 November 2013).
Dutton will face Wilberforce Chambers’ John Wardell QC and Andrew Mold who are instructed by Radcliffes Le Brasseur partner Nigel West for the respondent, Logue. Both Wardell and West acted for Logue in the February SDT hearing and the 2010 judgement.
The details of the February judgment were never published by the SDT because an appeal was lodged immediately and detailed reasons have never been disclosed for the ruling.
The case was bought by Logue, a one-time defendant pursued by Shaw on behalf of the Complete Retreats Liquidating Trust. The 2010 judgment delivered by Mr Justice Roth concerned a ‘without notice’ worldwide freezing order that Shaw had secured for the liquidators of US-based ‘destination clubs’ Complete Retreats.
Such an order can only be delivered in the most extenuating circumstances, without the defendant attending court.
It is rare for the SDT to uphold private prosecutions and the decision could have lasting implications for the industry, who could face SDT prosecutions from former clients after this precedent.