Raleys appeals SDT decisions on miners case
Share
North-east firm Raleys Solicitors is appealing two Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decisions relating to the firm’s role in handling compensation claims from sick coalminers.
Carol Gill
In February the firm’s then senior partner Derek Firth was banned from practising law for four years while equity partner David Barber was suspended for two years and partner Jonathan Markham was handed a six-month suspension. Partners Carol Gill, James Gladman, and Katherine Richards were each handed a £10,000 fine for their conduct.
All six were found guilty of misconduct in relation to their relationship with Arthur Scargill’s National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). The union provided the firm with 29,000 clients seeking damages from the miners’ compensation scheme and in return the firm deducted money from clients’ damages payments to give to the NUM (17 February 2009).
While the firm does not dispute the findings of misconduct, it is appealing the decision that the firm should reimburse 30 clients for the sums paid to the NUM.
Gill, who is now managing partner at the firm, said: “The first [appeal] concerns the decision to uphold monetary awards in favour of 30 clients who agreed to have money deducted from government compensation and paid to the NUM but who were considered not to have been advised adequately in respect of those agreements.
“A key argument will be that neither the firm nor any of its people received this money, and that the awards to reimburse deductions, which came about after a change of policy by the Law Society, are not justified in law.
“Clearly the awards in these 30 cases might have implications for other cases now in the complaints procedure pipeline, about which positive discussions between Raleys and the Law Society are continuing.”
Gill added that the firm is also appealing the SDT’s decision on costs.
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 6-Aug-2009 4:13 pm
These lawyers were found to have broken the rules. They were told to pay £10k for having done so. If they had not been fined they would have no been no recourse against them- possibly the only other action would be to suspend or have them struck off.
Appealing the fine on the basis that the lawyers did not get to keep any of the money is plainly ridiculous. They should pay up and the SDT should win its case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Britomart | 6-Aug-2009 11:20 pm
I agree with Anonymous at 4.13pm, but I wonder if any other of the firms fined by the SDT will follow Raley's lead. I suspect a few of them will be watching this quite closely!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Aug-2009 8:53 am
Right, so they don't dispute their misconduct but they do dispute having to repay money? erm......good luck with that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Aug-2009 9:54 am
If you read the report correctly, you will note that its not the FINE that they are appealling, nor the ruling of misconduct which gave rise to the fine, but the ruling that they have to re-pay the monies deducted from the damages received ( i.e the money that these miners agreed to pay to the NUM in the event they were sucessfully awarded compensation. ) As I understand it, this money was paid to the NUM. I am no way defending their conduct, but the facts should be set straight before criticism ensues.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
fat chance | 7-Aug-2009 10:48 am
I can see the courts bending over backwards to throw out their appeal. Stupid does as stupid is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Aug-2009 12:15 pm
Hang on a minute in return for a referral they agreed to pay the NUM a fee and they persuaded the miners, whom they were supposed to represent to agree to the payment ... errr... my advice, let it go, you just drawing more attention to your obliterated reputation. By the way get rid of the "we accept Visa or Mastercard" sign on your webite very unbecoming.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Aug-2009 3:47 pm
the referral fees deducted from the miners settlement monies and paid to the NUM would have been done so with written consent from the client - if the client wishes to have this money returned to them then this should come from the NUM and not the lawyers, there are a lot of heads of miners unions that profited from these deductions who are now living very nicely in their spanish villas!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment