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 | 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