Reid Minty sues former partners

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • Autocratic fiefdoms die hard!

    As The Lawyer reported, Mr Reid has ‘sold’ Reid Minty’s commercial litigation business to Mcgrigors and is now a ‘consultant’ to Mcgrigors’ litigation department, while continuing to head up his personal injury cash cow RMPI LLP -(which in legal terms is presumably Reid Minty with a name change).

    One wonders whether McGrigors have started to get the jitters yet?!

    From what we hear, Reid used to use the weight of his litigation firm for his personal battles against all and sundry. This begs the question – is Mcgrigors acting for the emasculated Mr Reid / Reid Minty (R.I.P?) or RMPI LLP in the action against the ex- Reid Minty Partners and ProLegal et al and might that not throw up some potential conflicts?

    We are sure Mcgrigors and the legacy Reid Minty partners have dealt with the professional conduct issues this one seems to throw up - If not, we can rest assured that Addleshaw Goddard will offer to help them work this one through!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • and there were three in the bed and the little one said 'roll over, roll over'..

    The overnight amendments to this article suggest the suspicions raised in the above comment were well founded. This arrangement still poses questions though.
    Mcgrigors ‘acquires’ Reid Minty Litigation and Property departments – leaving a few personal injury fee earners. Reid then changes the firm’s name to RMPI LLP and instructs Mcgrigors to act against some of his ex-partners (not the ones he flogged to Mcgrigors, some other less fortunate ones – the ones he flogged to Capita!).

    Let’s read between the lines: -
    1. Reid was presumably using his litigation lawyers on this matter (or related matters) prior to their departure for the Scottish Highlands of EC4.

    2. The chances are that the same lawyers are therefore still working on this case, albeit on Mcgrigors’ letterhead.

    3. Did Mcgrigors agree to act for Reid as part of the deal that saw Mcgrigors inherit the majority of Reid Minty’s staff? Of course not, that would too likely offend the principles of independence and possibly impair the solicitors’ overriding duties to the court.

    But what would the position be for the ex – Reid Minty partners advising Reid in this matter were RMPI LLP be hit with a very serious adverse costs order for example?

    Might they not find themselves personally liable? It has got to be a possibility and that surely means there is real cause for concern. Are these lawyers quietly hoping that Addleshaw Goddard or Peters & Peters makes a speedy Security for Costs application? Whatever the outcome, it might take the edge of their nerves!

    No, no... We are sure there are more Chinese walls in Mcgrigors’ Old Bailey offices than there are in your average Beijing tea house. And of course, Reid will have RMPI very well capitalised and insured to the hilt so there is no reason whatsoever why the residual Reid Minty firm is not good for the money. And of course, Reid will have generously indemnified his ex- partners. So I guess everyone sleeps soundly... snuggled up in this curious ‘lots of lawyers in a cosy bed’ arrangement.

    Oh, and don’t forget that Reid is a consultant to Mcgrigors litigation department so we can assume they are receiving the best ‘strategic planning’ advice in the business!

    Note: If Reid Minty’s billing reputation is anything to go by (‘Accosting Costs’, The Lawyer, 6th October - http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=135057), Reid can presumably expect a chunky legal bill from his new Scottish mates!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (2)