Pressure on Hogan Lovells to inform Met of fraud

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (27)

  • Although he has been rightly dismissed by HL, he still holds a practising certificate (as I understand it) and can therefore hold clients' monies; why?
    He has admitted his wrong and is paying the money back, so what more proof does the SRA need to strike him off; does he really need to be taken to the SDT to find out the obvious!
    I thought part of the SRA's remit was to ensure client's were not put in harm's way, so why doesn't it act now with the clear evidence it has; just because it wasn't client monies he stole doesn't make the offence any less serious?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry but giving the money back does not exonerate you from culpability and charges. Especially when you only did so after you had been caught. I assume most of the commenters on here are lawyers but even if not I think most people would know that already. Your average thief cant escape charges by offering to give your TV back and neither should a partner in a law firm, particularly one who stole more than 10 regular thieves would be able to manage.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'the regulator has since launched an investigation into the false expenses claims, which are mainly for air fares'...
    In order to accumulate claims of 1 mill over four years, he must have been submitting weekly claims for travel to far-flung destinations; why did nobody then notice that he was, presumably, around more often than not?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 4.36am you have probably hit the nail on the head. The fact that Christopher Grierson had been filling his pockets for 4 years before his deception came to light suggests that the amounts were not so extraordinary as to be noticably dodgy and worthy of investigation or he would have been hoofed out sooner. Yet only six months after the US merger (the fraudulent claims run to December 2010) the fraud was picked up as a result, we must assume, of more searching Hogan-led internal audit procedures than under Lovells and he is out on his ear with the possibility of more to follow. After all there isn't only one MP in prison.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • From memory one can get a 1st class return to NYC for about £3k.

    Now since he was claiming about £1500 per day, if it's only flights and hotels then that suggests that he never collected his bags at T5.

    I really can't see how it's plausible that HoLo can credibly claim to have had effective risk management and corporate governance proceedures in place so as to comply with Rule 5 when something like this can have gone on for so long.

    For goodness sake, aren't we supposed to be talking about a firm with acute commercial acumen?

    Who was signing off his expenses?
    How was he able to have funds to the travel company go from the firm but out to his personal account?

    I find it hard to accept at face value that no other party was involved.

    I think even Freddy Patel might be up to this PM.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Most associates at HL think the police should be involved, but as usual, they are protecting their own....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If anyone who is well read on STD judgements, they will find that solicitors have been struck or at least suspended for several years for claiming fraudulent expenses from clients disguised as disbursements and even for suspected overcharging. This is SRA protecting a magic circle firm, and behind the scenes vetoing a police investigation and subsequent prosecution under their 'Memorendum of Understanding' with the police. So much for separation of power

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (27)