The Lawyer is happy to print the following statement

Lovells strongly object to the terms of an article on 22 April referring to the firm under the headline “Clayton Utz shreds evidence and reputation at same time”. The article referred to a judgment given by Mr Justice Eames in the Supreme Court of Victoria on March 22 in McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited. The judgment referred to the role of Andrew Foyle, a Lovells partner, in relation to issues of document management. It should be borne in mind that these were proceedings against an Australian company in an Australian court and about issues subject to Australian law.
Lovells wish it to be made clear that, contrary to the report published:
The court did not find that Andrew Foyle or Lovells were implicated or involved at any time in any destruction of documents; nor were they involved.
The court did not single out Andrew Foyle for criticism over his role in formulating BAT's document management strategy.
Lovells are satisfied that any criticism of their role is unjustified and that everything which the firm did was entirely proper – legally, professionally and ethically.