Stewarts Law partner struck off after private prosecution
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has struck off Stewarts Law litigation partner Andrew Shaw following private prosecution proceedings.
Stewarts Law” src=”/Pictures/web/x/q/h/stewarts-la_105.jpg” />
Details around the case are minimal because the SDT will not publish its reasoning for another seven weeks. The SRA confirmed that the decision was the result of a private prosecution. Stewarts Law said Shaw would appeal the ruling.
It is understood that the private application was brought by an individual named Geoffrey Logue, a former New York-based investment banker who once appeared as a defendant in a case pursued by Shaw on behalf of the Complete Retreats Liquidating Trust. Logue is a UK national who had been working in the US.
Logue was represented in the 2010 case by Wilberforce Chambers’ John Wardell QC, who also represented him at the SDT having been instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseurpartner Nigel West. It is understood that Shaw was represented by a 4 New Square silk.
It is unusual for the SDT to uphold a private prosecution claim. A partner who specialises in the field commented: “These cases tend to be at the smaller end of the profession, usually they’re cases that have been dismissed by the SRA and the individual wants to follow up on it. I can’t recall there ever being a case that has been upheld.”
Stewarts Law, which hired Shaw in 2009 from Manches (13 April 2009), said it was “deeply dismayed” at the decision.
It continued: “Andrew Shaw strenuously denied and defended all the claims and was represented by his own legal team, led by a QC. We understand that Andrew Shaw and his legal team will be considering an appeal once the SDT’s full decision is available. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to comment further.”
The 2010 judgment delivered by Mr Justice Roth concerns a ‘without notice’ worldwide freezing order that Shaw had secured for the liquidators of US-based ‘destination clubs’ business Complete Retreats against Logue. Such an order can only be delivered in the most extenuating circumstances, without the defendant attending court.
The ruling, which discharges the injunction and refuses a fresh one to be issued, reveals that Shaw submitted eight affidavits to the court in support of the without-notice order.
Shaw could not be reached for comment.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 1:33 pm
I would expect it is a simple case of proving some dishonesty over his conduct re that previous matter. The dishonesty threshold requiring a striking off is a low one, and it's a case of there but for the grace of God go I, as most solicitors would in my view breach this threshold at least once in their career.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 4:08 pm
Reading [2010] EWHC 1864 (Ch) does not reveal any dishonesty - at most some oversights and the presentation of some evidence in a slightly partial manner. Perhaps the solution would be to have an impartial figure, say a judge, review the evidence before granting an ex-parte freezing order.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
concerned.com | 19-Feb-2013 4:54 pm
The issue here is that there is minimal detail, thanks to the SDT draconian approach to rulings. If the High Court were to take seven weeks to publish reasonings after the case is heard there would be uproar. Here we have a tribunal which, apparently, has the right to hear private prosecutions as if it were a civil court but i not under the same obligation to publish the details of its reasoning. Any attempt to contact the tribunal is met with a staunch rebuff. Surely Shaw will be unable to challenge anything the SDT decides until he has seen its reasoning. Will he be made to wait another seven weeks, time that could be extremely damaging to ones repuatation?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 5:53 pm
I largely agree Concerned.com but would it really be better for the SDT's findings to be in the public domain while they are potentially subject to an appeal?
Perhaps it would be better to quietly suspend the person concerned pending appeal particularly where, as in this case, the solicitor sits within a substantial firm and there is no possible risk to the public.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 7:26 pm
It is staggering that the judge who heard the original proceedings made no observation as to the case's conduct yet the SDT - one of whose members is a lay person, the other a country solicitor - should have the power to hear strike off proceedings, decide on them and delay the issue of its reasoning. Mr Shaw was represented by Mayer Brown and by a silk and he deserves a better hearing in front of a proper judicial panel. I have no doubt Stewarts will get their partner back, he is a reputable practitioner in a highly professional firm. I fear no good will come to Mr Logue as a result of this as well, it may prove to be an expensive and ultimately fruitless exercise for him.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Feb-2013 1:17 pm
This could be a dangerous precedent, as it signals that the very rich have a simple and very effective way to bully solicitors into submission.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Archibold Leach | 20-Feb-2013 3:35 pm
If anything it shows that a solicitor cannot help acting in his client's best interests and this obligation (which he fell foul of) to give full and frank disclosure of any weakesnesses in a client's application for a freezing injunction runs contrary to our training and instinct.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Feb-2013 11:32 am
It is very interesting to see how easily a private prosecution in the SDT can succeed when those very high standards of conduct that apply to all solicitors are tested against a respected individual at a large reputable firm (which does not normally happen, as the SRA is of course reluctant to apply those very high standards of conduct to large firms and they much prefer to pick on defenceless small firms).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bumpkin | 25-Feb-2013 2:30 pm
I was somewhat bemused by 'Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 7:26 pm' reference to a 'Country Solicitor'. Is this a new form of lawyer or just a derogotary comment in general about solicitors who do not practice in the city and are therefore incapable of understanding what a probably quite complex issues. Also where does the 'Country' start ? I'm intrigued to know!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Feb-2013 9:13 am
This appears to be a very harsh decision, especially when one considers that the decision was not stayed pending the appeal which will undoubtedly follow. I have worked with Andrew Shaw in the past, indeed we were partners at Manches, and know him to be a very likeable, highly competent and professional lawyer, who has the benefit of an unblemished reputation. Whilst Andrew was criticised in the judgment, there were no allegations of dishonesty and indeed his apologies were accepted by the judge. It seems to me that any dispute between Andrew and the complainant in relation to any alleged loss or damage suffered by the latter ought properly to have been determined by a civil tribunal. My thoughts go out to him and his partners at this difficult time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment