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.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (29)
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