Pinsent Masons faces lawsuit following trainee assault
A former Pinsent Masons trainee who left after an alleged assault by a colleague in 2011 is mulling bringing a civil action against his old firm.
Ross Knight, who began his traineeship at Pinsent Masons in August 2009, was on a night out with firm solicitor Edward Lowdell last year when Lowdell allegedly attacked him by putting him in a headlock and repeatedly punching him on the head. Both lawyers left Pinsent Masons later that year.
Knight’s solicitor, EMW consultant Trevor Jenkin, said that he was now considering the circumstances surrounding Knight’s departure. One possibility is that Knight could bring a civil action against his old firm.
Lowdell faces jail after pleading guilty to actual bodily harm at Blackfriars Crown Court on 1 August. He initially denied the charges against him and said he was acting in self defence, but yesterday changed his plea to guilty, according to the Daily Mail. Reports state that jurors were shown CCTV footage of the alleged attack. Lowdell will be sentenced tomorrow.
On the night of the attack, 25 March 2011, Lowdell and Knight were at an office party celebrating Pinsent Masons’ move to new headquarters in London’s Crown Place. The pair left the party with others at 11pm to carry on drinking at a pub.
After finishing at the pub, while walking through Hatton Garden, Lowdell put Knight into a headlock and punched him repeatedly. Police and ambulance services were called to the incident, which took place at around 1:40am, with Knight requiring hospital treatment for his injuries.
Pinsent Masons carried out an internal investigation of the incident, but Lowdell resigned from the firm before it was completed. Knight completed his training contract but left the firm in August 2011 and now works as a solicitor at a construction company. Lowdell has reportedly said that he intends to teach English abroad if he is spared jail.
In a statement, a spokesman for Pinsent Masons said that it was too early to comment on any possible civil action against the firm, but added: “Pinsent Masons prides itself on the professional conduct of its staff, and this was an isolated incident that occurred in March 2011. A thorough internal investigation into the matter was conducted at the time, and subsequently both staff members left the firm.”
Readers' comments (29)
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 3:42 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 4:10 pm
"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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Coolio | 2-Aug-2012 4:28 pm
Who dares, Wins.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 5:15 pm
He seems to have forgotten about the first rule of fight club.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Victorian Dad - spare the rod, spoil the trainee | 2-Aug-2012 5:21 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that we are not allowed to flog our trainees? When did the law change?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
barrie cunning | 3-Aug-2012 1:38 am
There slogan is we have a can do attitude and get results...clearly it's kill or be killed..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 2:50 am
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
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
3-ducks | 3-Aug-2012 9:35 am
"Pinsents were unwise to hire this aggressive boy, he already had a conviction for affray."
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 10:44 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 10:51 am
Reference the conviction for affray, this has been widely reported in the national press.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 11:47 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 11:52 am
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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brenda | 3-Aug-2012 1:04 pm
Do Pinsents have a values programme?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alain de Botton | 3-Aug-2012 1:10 pm
You become a TEFL teacher when your life has gone wrong.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 1:36 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B Mullen | 3-Aug-2012 1:52 pm
Very true from Alain de Botton.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark TRex | 3-Aug-2012 3:18 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 4:49 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eye of the tiger | 4-Aug-2012 8:05 am
All trainee contracts should now contain a "rematch" clause.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2012 10:14 am
Pinsents do have a values programme. Its reads profits over people.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Aug-2012 11:21 am
But, I am your lawyer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Aug-2012 12:38 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Aug-2012 9:59 am
The offender is a partner, surely there are clauses attached to his behaviour in the workplace especially when it exceeds gross misconduct?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Aug-2012 11:11 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 6-Aug-2012 2:11 pm
Did he goto jail?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anonymous | 6-Aug-2012 11:05 pm
utter stupidity
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Banjo | 7-Aug-2012 10:31 am
Sentenced to 100 hours Community Service according to the Lawyer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Aug-2012 12:57 pm
Whole new slant on eat what you kill
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Aug-2012 7:24 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment