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.