I see he is being called to the PO Inquiry in phases 5 or 6. I may attend.
I really do hope the Inquiry counsel are not bullied into whimpering submission or, if he tries, it is obvious what he is doing and it backfires all over his face.
to which I would also add in relation to the specific example of wrong conduct the following tale which I still consider entirely improper.
I was in a senior role in an organisation which had a policy on certain areas of legal practice (litigation, regulatory enforcement, financial crime) which held that due to the seriousness of those issues only the head of litigation or general counsel could make decisions on the management of those matters or the instruction of external advisers (many banks have similar). It was a good way of ensuring no compliance geeza or happy go lucky M&A lawyer or non lawyer banker ended up smoking some dope and committing the bank without proper management of these specialist issues as commonly happens in the absence of good governance.
SO I had instructed three firms and two silks and a junior and had a big team on a big issue. we had been working on it for two or three years. It looked likely to be a difficult matter that would require patience and take some considerable years to resolve due to the pace adopted by prosecutors and regulators. The board were getting edgy because one of the board members, who was by then a senior NED who, when the transaction in issue had been executed, was chair of the board audit committee and therefore heavily involved in its approval) was getting vexed about it all and beginning to syndicate the blame. THis often happens when backs are against the wall. In itself not that problematic if you have the chance to handle it transparently and according to the agreed process the organisation has in place for that. Following policy I had instructed the firms etc and was taking advice. The board, on this person's request, quietly instructed another firm without telling me and they instructed Grabiner at the request of the NED. Grabiner then crashed a board meeting at which I was presenting the advice given by the firms advising the organisation. Grabiner said he had not read the papers but gave off cuff advice which entirely contradicted everything the firms working on my instruction had advised us to do, and his approach was plainly misjudged (to be charitable that is of course understandable if you haven't read the materials but the board should have recognised this). G was very critical of everyone and said that there was clearly a case to answer and that the advice given by the three firms and leading counsel was wrong. Aftert the meeting I tendered my resignation and so did the general counsel as we were effectively being told there was no confidence in the advice we were giving over which we had exclusive discretion under the policy. Grabiner had made our continuing impossible unless the organisation said to the contrary.
The instruction of the other firm on the quiet without my or the GC's sanction was a breach of governance. The Chair of the board asked us not to resign but to work withthe new firm, but told us that what the new firm would be instructed to do was a matter for the board not me.
I decided it was time to leave. In the time between making that decision and my actual departure, the new firm and Grabiner then organised a conference with board members. We (GC and head of litigation) learned of this from the new firm who were then told off for telling us. We asked to attend for obvious reasons as any decision by the organisation in relation to steps in the matter needed to be ratified by the GC and head of litigation - that's what the policy required. We received details after asking three times and attended 15 mins early. Grabiner had, however, invited the board an hour earlier without anyone telling us and when we arrived they said they had finished and he declined to meet further.
His advice seemed to be that the organisation should admit the charges. This was contrary to the position the organisation had taken for the three years leading up to that on advice from three major firms and two silks. In the subsequent proceedings the charges against the organisation were dismissed and the individuals were acquitted. He was wrong. He never knew the detail or respected the process large organisations need to operate under in order to get shit right.
1
4
heh
0
2
I see he is being called to the PO Inquiry in phases 5 or 6. I may attend.
I really do hope the Inquiry counsel are not bullied into whimpering submission or, if he tries, it is obvious what he is doing and it backfires all over his face.
0
2
Mutts, for newer members of ROF, please can you explain your history with Grabs?
0
3
I think I recently did so
2
5
https://www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/sir-ed-davey-and-post-office-scandal, @CounselCymraeg
Trigger warning for any komodo dragons reading
2
4
in here Sir Ed Davey and the Post Office Scandal | RollOnFriday
to which I would also add in relation to the specific example of wrong conduct the following tale which I still consider entirely improper.
I was in a senior role in an organisation which had a policy on certain areas of legal practice (litigation, regulatory enforcement, financial crime) which held that due to the seriousness of those issues only the head of litigation or general counsel could make decisions on the management of those matters or the instruction of external advisers (many banks have similar). It was a good way of ensuring no compliance geeza or happy go lucky M&A lawyer or non lawyer banker ended up smoking some dope and committing the bank without proper management of these specialist issues as commonly happens in the absence of good governance.
SO I had instructed three firms and two silks and a junior and had a big team on a big issue. we had been working on it for two or three years. It looked likely to be a difficult matter that would require patience and take some considerable years to resolve due to the pace adopted by prosecutors and regulators. The board were getting edgy because one of the board members, who was by then a senior NED who, when the transaction in issue had been executed, was chair of the board audit committee and therefore heavily involved in its approval) was getting vexed about it all and beginning to syndicate the blame. THis often happens when backs are against the wall. In itself not that problematic if you have the chance to handle it transparently and according to the agreed process the organisation has in place for that. Following policy I had instructed the firms etc and was taking advice. The board, on this person's request, quietly instructed another firm without telling me and they instructed Grabiner at the request of the NED. Grabiner then crashed a board meeting at which I was presenting the advice given by the firms advising the organisation. Grabiner said he had not read the papers but gave off cuff advice which entirely contradicted everything the firms working on my instruction had advised us to do, and his approach was plainly misjudged (to be charitable that is of course understandable if you haven't read the materials but the board should have recognised this). G was very critical of everyone and said that there was clearly a case to answer and that the advice given by the three firms and leading counsel was wrong. Aftert the meeting I tendered my resignation and so did the general counsel as we were effectively being told there was no confidence in the advice we were giving over which we had exclusive discretion under the policy. Grabiner had made our continuing impossible unless the organisation said to the contrary.
The instruction of the other firm on the quiet without my or the GC's sanction was a breach of governance. The Chair of the board asked us not to resign but to work withthe new firm, but told us that what the new firm would be instructed to do was a matter for the board not me.
I decided it was time to leave. In the time between making that decision and my actual departure, the new firm and Grabiner then organised a conference with board members. We (GC and head of litigation) learned of this from the new firm who were then told off for telling us. We asked to attend for obvious reasons as any decision by the organisation in relation to steps in the matter needed to be ratified by the GC and head of litigation - that's what the policy required. We received details after asking three times and attended 15 mins early. Grabiner had, however, invited the board an hour earlier without anyone telling us and when we arrived they said they had finished and he declined to meet further.
His advice seemed to be that the organisation should admit the charges. This was contrary to the position the organisation had taken for the three years leading up to that on advice from three major firms and two silks. In the subsequent proceedings the charges against the organisation were dismissed and the individuals were acquitted. He was wrong. He never knew the detail or respected the process large organisations need to operate under in order to get shit right.
1
3
I still have an opinion from yer man about something. It is ronger than laz finishing off on his nan's face. I read it sometimes for hehs.
0
3
heh
1
3
‘Compliance geeza’
0
3
Chairman of taveta (Philip green); provided part of the post offices defence in the horizon litigation.
Sounds dreadful
0
2
So back to Heff's original point, your card must have got lost in the post?
0
2
it must
0
1
By way of steaming jiffy, I trust
0
3
Oh good plan
Join the discussion