Pinsent Masons faces lawsuit following trainee assault By James Swift 2 August 2012 15:08 17 December 2015 12:37 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 2 August 2012 at 15:42 He won’t win. Why should a firm be responsible for the behaviour of their staff after hours? Pinsents were unwise to hire this aggressive boy, he already had a conviction for affray. Reply Link Anonymous 2 August 2012 at 16:10 “Pinsent Masons prides itself on the professional codnuct of its staff, and this was an isolated incident” … I beg to differ, the stories one could tell. Reply Link Coolio 2 August 2012 at 16:28 Who dares, Wins. Reply Link Anonymous 2 August 2012 at 17:15 He seems to have forgotten about the first rule of fight club. Reply Link Victorian Dad - spare the rod, spoil the trainee 2 August 2012 at 17:21 Are you seriously suggesting that we are not allowed to flog our trainees? When did the law change? Reply Link barrie cunning 3 August 2012 at 01:38 There slogan is we have a can do attitude and get results…clearly it’s kill or be killed.. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 02:50 An employer can not be responsible for actions of employees particularly away from the office. Acts not in the course of employment and even if it was not foreseeable. Hopeless on merits Reply Link 3-ducks 3 August 2012 at 09:35 “Pinsents were unwise to hire this aggressive boy, he already had a conviction for affray.” Do you have any evidence to support this? Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 10:44 Employers have been held liable for sexual harassment at office parties, both on and off the premises. Be interesting to see what the law behind the case against Pinsents would be, as and when it is presented. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 10:51 Reference the conviction for affray, this has been widely reported in the national press. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 11:47 CCTV shows an unprovoked assault, from an associate who has previous. The assault took place at an official office party, by an associate who had a previous conviction (for assualting a trainee!!) – so you would say Pinsents had a duty to protect the trainees from this imbecile. I also have it on very good authority that Pinsents actually disciplined the trainee and changed their discilplinary process halfway through in order to protect the associate, allowing him to resign instead of being dismissed. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 11:52 Of course they could be liable. I’m not saying they will be found liable because I don’t know all the facts. But what if this scenario was the case: The firm host a party. They provide free drinks and people can drink as much as they like. People get verty drunk. What if a partner said, “come on, let’s go to a pub” – note the article said that these two left “with others” – that could include a partner or partners. What if the partner then put his credit card behind the bar and said “the bar tab’s on me, keep drinking”. What if the assailant was very obviously drunk and was being aggressive in the pub but no-one did or said anything and in fact continued to supply him with drinks. In that scenario (and I have no idea whether any of that is correct) it’s not difficult to see how a court could find that the firm (through the actions of the partner/partners) materially contributed to this incident. The truth is that no-one on here knows the facts. The facts might suggest there is a case. Who knows? Reply Link Brenda 3 August 2012 at 13:04 Do Pinsents have a values programme? Reply Link Alain de Botton 3 August 2012 at 13:10 You become a TEFL teacher when your life has gone wrong. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 13:36 I think trainees, on qualification, should fight an associate to the death in a gladiatorial-style battle for their job. Survival of the fittest. There can be no room for weakness. Beer optional. Reply Link B Mullen 3 August 2012 at 13:52 Very true from Alain de Botton. Reply Link Mark TRex 3 August 2012 at 15:18 On the Law Society website it says Ed specialises in IT and computer law maybe it was one too many IT outsourcing contracts to review and he snapped. Always struck me as one of the most boring and intellectually unchallenging of areas of the law. Reply Link Anonymous 3 August 2012 at 16:49 Snotty comments from people who should know better. I’m sure there is far more to this than meets the eye and certain people commenting would do well to question any ‘facts’ put out there by a sensationalist rag like the Daily Mail. Thank God none of you are my lawyers. Reply Link Eye of the tiger 4 August 2012 at 08:05 All trainee contracts should now contain a “rematch” clause. Reply Link Anonymous 4 August 2012 at 10:14 Pinsents do have a values programme. Its reads profits over people. Reply Link Anonymous 5 August 2012 at 11:21 But, I am your lawyer. Reply Link Anonymous 5 August 2012 at 12:38 If the trainee can show that he had previously assaulted another trainee in the same firm, and then evidence the lack of action / training and supervision or even judgement by the employer by putting him in that position again (supervising trainees) then I think he has a case against the firm as they have a DoC to protect their employees etc. Although, chances are the trainee was a complete tosser who probably deserved it; rarely do people you work with start punching you round the head in a public p[lace without some type of provocation…… All that time spent training as a Solicitor down the toilet – what a shame. Reply Link Anonymous 6 August 2012 at 09:59 The offender is a partner, surely there are clauses attached to his behaviour in the workplace especially when it exceeds gross misconduct? Reply Link Anonymous 6 August 2012 at 11:11 Reference the above comments. 1. Employers can be found liable for the actions of employees. 2. The offender is not a partner. He is 3 years PQ and I suspect a senior assistant at best. Reply Link Dave 6 August 2012 at 14:11 Did he goto jail? Reply Link anonymous 6 August 2012 at 23:05 utter stupidity Reply Link Banjo 7 August 2012 at 10:31 Sentenced to 100 hours Community Service according to the Lawyer. Reply Link Anonymous 8 August 2012 at 12:57 Whole new slant on eat what you kill Reply Link Anonymous 29 August 2012 at 19:24 A claim against one of the biggest firms in the UK should not be attempted lightly, also the real question is how far should an employees actions out of work hours reflect on a business, is this really worthy of the courts time? This seems to be an isolated incident and provided that there are mechanisms in place to handle this sort of situation at Pinsent Masons it would be unreasonable to hold the firm responsible for one drunken fool. If Pinsent Masons were remissive in checking for outstanding convictions then there is a slight chance. Furthermore this sounds awfully akin to the compensation mentality. Punch ups happen, you send your assailant to jail and get damages and maybe compensation from him and he gets jail time. He should have the brute sent to jail and be content the justice system works, and not try to shoot the moon. As a solicitor I am sure that there are better uses of his time. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.