For once a "Breaking News" email from The Lawyer that's worthy of the title. Bloody hell. Did they not, at any point, start wondering if what they were doing was actually right? Any of them?
To the litigationists here - is what she is proposing (ie refusing or delaying disclosure until such time as you are forced to do so) a generally employed tactic?
Clubbers makes a good point. She qualified in September 2016. It’s not clear when the email was sent but she was either a trainee or, at best, 3 months qualified- there is a partner somewhere who not only approved the email, but the strategy too. Wonder if they will get their collar felt?
you do not have to disclose anything until a court order states disclosure must be made, after that if anything new comes to light there is a continuing duty of disclosure. Not sure what the procedural position was here.
They will have been under a duty to disclose known adverse documents that were not privileged (which I assume these weren’t, or there would be no need for the “in a way that looks legitimate” line).
If she was a trainee then the responsibility is 100 per cent with her supervisors unless she decided to send out advice without being checked having been told not to do so.
Doesn't this kind of stuff happen in litigation all the time with people accidentally losing the really embarrassing smoking gun and the like? I thought half the point of paying expensive lawyers was to try and find ways to avoid disclosing the bad stuff.
No Sails, no litigation solicitor worth their salt "loses" adverse documents. It is not worth risking your career to please one client. I am not saying it does not happen, there are bound to be bad apples, but I have never seen it in all my years of litigating. The more expensive the lawyers the more they have to lose and the more likely they are to play by the book.
In terms of losing them I meant more clients losing them and the solicitors just saying "oh that's a shame" rather than pressing any further as someone at the client is furiously burning everything.
oh thats different, solicitors dont have a duty to investigate behind what their client tells them, although these days the disclosure process usually involves electronic searches carried out by the law firm on a client's system that would make it far harder for the client to "lose" documents.
Christ, I find myself having to defend the wombles here.
It's a disastrously worded email but according to the Graun article this was at an early stage of litigation before any disclosure order had been made.
There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that these docs were subsequently withheld when the duty to disclose them actually arose.
You don't have an obligation to hand over all of your worstest documents just because your opponent stamps their feet and asks for them really hard.
Having llitigated against that sort of claimant firm it is frustrating, and they do expect the defendant to convict themselves its the phrasing that says it's hooky that sinks them IMO
Justin Beer explained to the Inquiry that the email from the junior (Amy Price) had been commented on, and approved by, the Wombles supervising partner Andrew Parsons. So, it's not on her head.
Seems what she should have said is "the Claimants are asking for document X. Document X is relevant. Counsel has confirmed it is not privileged. Accordingly this document is ultimately disclosable. However, we are under no obligation to disclose documents at this stage so suggest we resist early disclosure. We must recognise however that we may ultimately be criticised for this, and it may have an impact on any cost order ultimately made. We are also unable to advance any factual assertions that document X contradicts."
Didn’t a lot of this stuff happen pre merger, or in the run up to it? I can’t imagine why a provincial U.K. firm looking to hook up with a US firm would behave like this, can you?
I dont think it is poor behaviour as such, it is just incredibly badly worded advice from a trainee solicitor/junior solicitor who should have been better supervised.
Seemed pretty clear from the way Justin Beer introduced the email, that Andrew Parsons was heavily involved in the drafting of it i.e. whilst it was in her name, it was very much his email. I think Beer said something along the lines of "Ms Prime, who was recently qualified, sent a draft of this email to Mr Parsons first and he contributed to the drafting of it."
In other words, this wasn't some badly worded email from an NQ, but quite deliberately drafted in that way by the supervising partner.
Ta. This looks as though it was during the course of some sort of disclosure exercise, and WBD appears to be saying that they wouldn't the very least delay disclosure of the doc in question until the pressure from Freeths got too high (i.e. not "until the deadline for disclosure given in their directions"). That seems like a pretty clear indication that they would have been willing not to disclose at all if they were not sufficiently chased by Freeths.
3
2
Depends. Was the offender an already-rich partner in full moral control of his decisions or a trainee acting under duress or unspoken orders?
2
3
Good point. It may be outside the SRA's jurisdiction. After all, it's not there to police the Wombles of this world.
0
2
Christ alive. Who would let an email like that go out.
6
2
Did they hide it underground or overground?
1
2
Farking bell that email
2
2
The SRA shouldn’t be worrying about this or the whole Ince debacle
Focus on the important stuff - junior solicitors recording time on dormant files!!!!
3
3
For once a "Breaking News" email from The Lawyer that's worthy of the title. Bloody hell. Did they not, at any point, start wondering if what they were doing was actually right? Any of them?
2
2
That's not looking hugely clever for either of them, is it?
Presumably written in the expectation of legal privilege stopping it ever coming out.
"Always imagine any email you write being read out by a sarcastic person in a wig"
3
2
she sent it in 2016, the year she qualified. so either a trainee, or newly qual. perfect target for the regulator
3
1
Good point. And a woman too. If she is BAME she may as well strike herself off now.
0
1
To the litigationists here - is what she is proposing (ie refusing or delaying disclosure until such time as you are forced to do so) a generally employed tactic?
0
1
Clubbers makes a good point. She qualified in September 2016. It’s not clear when the email was sent but she was either a trainee or, at best, 3 months qualified- there is a partner somewhere who not only approved the email, but the strategy too. Wonder if they will get their collar felt?
0
1
you do not have to disclose anything until a court order states disclosure must be made, after that if anything new comes to light there is a continuing duty of disclosure. Not sure what the procedural position was here.
2
1
I think it's more the "and try to do so in a way that looks legitimate" line that sinks it.
If they'd said "the court will probably order it, but we'll fight it as much as we can", it'd be different.
1
2
They will have been under a duty to disclose known adverse documents that were not privileged (which I assume these weren’t, or there would be no need for the “in a way that looks legitimate” line).
Absolutely terrible.
0
1
if you read the email it specifically says that counsel had advised it was not privileged.
1
1
it was presumably approved by or at least copied to more senior solicitors who should have corrected her
0
1
If she was a trainee then the responsibility is 100 per cent with her supervisors unless she decided to send out advice without being checked having been told not to do so.
0
1
Doesn't this kind of stuff happen in litigation all the time with people accidentally losing the really embarrassing smoking gun and the like? I thought half the point of paying expensive lawyers was to try and find ways to avoid disclosing the bad stuff.
0
1
Maybe Tom[sk] Beezer ? Looking forward to seeing him on the witness stand (scheduled for 12th June).
1
1
No Sails, no litigation solicitor worth their salt "loses" adverse documents. It is not worth risking your career to please one client. I am not saying it does not happen, there are bound to be bad apples, but I have never seen it in all my years of litigating. The more expensive the lawyers the more they have to lose and the more likely they are to play by the book.
0
1
In terms of losing them I meant more clients losing them and the solicitors just saying "oh that's a shame" rather than pressing any further as someone at the client is furiously burning everything.
0
1
oh thats different, solicitors dont have a duty to investigate behind what their client tells them, although these days the disclosure process usually involves electronic searches carried out by the law firm on a client's system that would make it far harder for the client to "lose" documents.
0
0
Christ, I find myself having to defend the wombles here.
It's a disastrously worded email but according to the Graun article this was at an early stage of litigation before any disclosure order had been made.
There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that these docs were subsequently withheld when the duty to disclose them actually arose.
You don't have an obligation to hand over all of your worstest documents just because your opponent stamps their feet and asks for them really hard.
0
0
Having llitigated against that sort of claimant firm it is frustrating, and they do expect the defendant to convict themselves its the phrasing that says it's hooky that sinks them IMO
0
0
Justin Beer explained to the Inquiry that the email from the junior (Amy Price) had been commented on, and approved by, the Wombles supervising partner Andrew Parsons. So, it's not on her head.
1
0
Seems what she should have said is "the Claimants are asking for document X. Document X is relevant. Counsel has confirmed it is not privileged. Accordingly this document is ultimately disclosable. However, we are under no obligation to disclose documents at this stage so suggest we resist early disclosure. We must recognise however that we may ultimately be criticised for this, and it may have an impact on any cost order ultimately made. We are also unable to advance any factual assertions that document X contradicts."
0
0
Quite. Parsons is due to give evidence in the coming weeks. No doubt Mr Beer will enjoy taking him to this particular piece of correspondence...
0
0
Didn’t a lot of this stuff happen pre merger, or in the run up to it? I can’t imagine why a provincial U.K. firm looking to hook up with a US firm would behave like this, can you?
0
0
I dont think it is poor behaviour as such, it is just incredibly badly worded advice from a trainee solicitor/junior solicitor who should have been better supervised.
0
0
Lots of people making sure their time recording is bang on right now
SRA investigators will be at the door soon
Yeah right
0
0
Quite funny that according to her LinkedIn, she is now leading WBD's e-Discovery team...
1
0
Seemed pretty clear from the way Justin Beer introduced the email, that Andrew Parsons was heavily involved in the drafting of it i.e. whilst it was in her name, it was very much his email. I think Beer said something along the lines of "Ms Prime, who was recently qualified, sent a draft of this email to Mr Parsons first and he contributed to the drafting of it."
In other words, this wasn't some badly worded email from an NQ, but quite deliberately drafted in that way by the supervising partner.
2
3
Wow - the early noughties called and asked for its inaccurate racial grouping descriptor back. Did you call people "coloured" in the 90s?
0
0
What chinney said above. Here is the email, hopefully you can read by expanding the screen.
0
0
Sorry, I can’t get it to upload
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ta. This looks as though it was during the course of some sort of disclosure exercise, and WBD appears to be saying that they wouldn't the very least delay disclosure of the doc in question until the pressure from Freeths got too high (i.e. not "until the deadline for disclosure given in their directions"). That seems like a pretty clear indication that they would have been willing not to disclose at all if they were not sufficiently chased by Freeths.
0
0
I havent really looked at rof today but am pleased to see that mutters contributed on my behal at 14.35. Heh for that
0
0
Put these people in jail.
Join the discussion