2023 in review: The main characters

This year’s legal emissaries did themselves proud, magnanimously performing both good and terrible deeds in order to maintain the sector’s ethical equilibrium.

On the side of the angels, a Squire Patton Boggs partner enforced the law on the global stage when he refereed the rugby world cup final, RPC’s resident songsmith penned a twisted banger, another legal singer made it to Eurovision, a trainee made a bid for Miss Universe, and a Forbes solicitor made an impressive earthquake aid journey.

On the political stage, former Clifford Chance tax partner Dan Neidle was a thorn in the side of the former chancellor, while a solicitor displayed the humility sorely lacking among so many public servants when he apologised after being wrong about Matt Hancock. (And, erm, then apologised again after he was caught caping for the lying Lady Mone.)

In December a Christmas hero emerged when a former Slaughters lawyer took a hiding on behalf of two care workers. That's not to diminish the bravery of the lionhearted Hogan Lovells partner who bravely escaped Burning Man when it got a bit muddy.

Social media self-marketeers got the monkey’s paw working hard this year, gaining fame for quitting biglaw and for their dating disasters (ROF understands Keoghs banned its lawyers from TikTok after that story ran, which is a shame), and for presenting the liquidation of their firm as a strategic triumph.

There was relief as innocent lawyers were cleared of stripping for clients to win business, and, at Hogan Lovells, of being greedy. Another solicitor won confirmation he was unfairly sacked for being too knackered to work, and a London lawyer sued a supermarket for accusing him of shoplifting.

Before a recap of the icky stuff, please take a moment to appreciate the consensual romances. Readers gave ROF a tour of the UK’s most incestuous firms, while the boss of Vardags published her steamy debut novel (also incestuous). As is traditional, a lawyer quit law for smut having decided that it involved both less effort and more profit. A seasonal party warning was povided by an open-minded lady using a videobooth.

Axiom Ince's £66 million man, Pragnesh Modhwadia, was this season’s big bad, but Oliver Bretherton’s extraordinary kinky office conduct with teenage staff at WLG Gowling was an eye- (and ping pong ball-) popping read.

Firms continued to take a harder line on workplace deviancy than in the past. Bakers, which once covered up a senior partner’s unwanted advance, jettisoned one of its lawyers who was accused of sexual misconduct in a crazy tale featuring swords and a microwaved hamster.

Womble Bond Dickinson did the same after a top partner allegedly got gropey at a party, and Ince (RIP) fired its Singapore Managing Partner for touching women in a bar without their consent.

As a group, male lawyers scored depressingly well in Perv Bingo this year. A Cooley associate left his firm after stalking his ex-girlfriend, a partner sung about his trainee’s genitals, a lawyer with a foot fetish sent humiliation fantasies to his colleagues, and there was an upskirting epidemic (well, two cases).

In one of the more incredible errors of the year, BLM (RIP) accidentally gave a paedophile video footage of a child. A tax lawyer an online firm Jurit was caught in a Grindr trap, and an employee was prised from Latham & Watkins after the grim contents of his computer were discovered.

The most frustrating story of the year for some readers concerned a paedophile associate at Herbert Smith Freehills. His partner successfully appealed to ROF and the rest of the British press not to name him in order to protect their children, meaning he was convicted, sacked and struck off with his privacy intact.

A least the creepy lawyer who flashed schoolgirls on his daily jog was also struck off.

In a year of reckonings, an Eversheds Sutherland pugilist meted out primal justice, punching a banker who allegedly made a homophobic slur, and there was literary violence when a foolhardy male lawyer advised women how to get a husband.

He wasn’t the only dude making unforced errors of etiquette. A Russell Cooke solicitor was rebuked for making an obscene sexual gesture at a colleague over Christmas drinks, another solicitor got in trouble for telling a candidate at her interview, “Mmmm, I like what I see”, and a barrister was fined for throwing up a Nazi salute in court. Usually unwise, that.

Top tip: watch what you commit to the firm’s email system if you love off-colour banter. A pair of US lawyers found that out the hard way when they binned their firm and it took revenge by publicly disseminating their deeply iffy correspondence.

ROF exposed allegations of racism in Baker McKenzie’s Belgium office which led to a spring clean at the top, while back in blighty a black trainee was humiliated by police hunting for a drug dealer, and a law firm boss was sacked after she allegedly used the n-word (the firm ended up settling with her company for £500k).

Race and religion took a front seat in October when Hamas attacked Israel and took hostages, triggering an ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Winston & Strawn dumped a future associate because she voiced support for the massacre in Israel, and lawyers with different sympathies fell out. Lawyers from Slaughter and May and MoFo were subjected to antisemitic abuse, while Shakespeare Martineau had words with its COO and lawyers when their public pro-Palestine positions drew heat.

Proskauer Rose jetting in from the US to confront a bullying London partner was a simple decision by comparison, as were ROF’s articles dealing with good old, straight up greed.

That story strand saw a partner raiding his client account to pay scam artists to release his fictional lottery winnings, and a Reed Smith managing partner with a liberal interpretation of the expenses policy.

Frauds popped up throughout the year, not just at Axiom Ince. There was the solicitor who offered a fake training contract to a friend, the (now former) DLA Piper partner who forged a signature, and the ill-judged plane hoax which cost one poor lawyer his job (don’t make bomb jokes at 18,000 feet, folks). Then there was the lawyer who pretended his AI bot was great at running cases, when in fact it was serving up tosh.

Over at the Bar, a pair of briefs were targeted in a bomb plot, another barrister one kicked off over objections to his helipad plans, and the storied Henry Hendron was jailed for scoring meth off a client, Amen.

The Lord must have been on a fag break while a barrister who wished plagues upon his enemies was struck off, and He definitely had better things to do when a law firm cancelled its interview with a candidate after hearing his unfortunate answerphone message (although that story should be taken with a big pinch of salt).

Defence of the year? The US man who pretended to be an Englishman and produced an unmissable video in which he fulminated against the suggestion he was lying, closely followed by the fellow whose case rested on having two arseholes.

But the Brass Neck Award goes to the ex-TLT, ex-Ashfords and ex-Keystone partner (Modhwadia would be the winner but he's taken enough already) who kept drink driving, kept getting convicted, and kept concealing it. And who, after he was struck off, was still being held out as a solicitor by his new employer. A toast of Becks Blue to him, and three cheers to all the other headlining individuals this year who weren't awful villains.

Comments

A lot of the comments on incestuous firms sound like jealousy.

I look forward to Prags having to share a shower with Mr Big for 10 years or so.

Where is Sir David in this article? Surely he is villain of the year for booting out the HR Managers

Don’t forget me!!!

@[email protected] - we remember you. You were completely cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB!

Anonymous 23 December 23 08:30: you must be thinking of someone else! I am the barrister peer who was found to have sexually harassed a woman and abused my position by offering to obtain her a peerage in exchange for sex! Nothing done by the BSB disturbed that finding - unfortunately, they had no jurisdiction to do so! I therefore richly deserve to join the list of villains!

Prags, Bretherton and Lester. The dream team, specialising in misconduct!

@11.26 - no, you were cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB, who had jurisdiction to look into the claims against you. You're not a villain and weren't found guilty of abusing your position or harassing anyone by the BSB! You deserve sympathy, you went through hell.

The lawyer accused of stripping may well have been innocent (false accusations are very common), but she a male accused and a female accuser would not have been treated in the same way. Gender still too often plays a part in who is believed.

A lot of the stuff that's supposedly 'icky' consists of unproven allegations.

What was the update on Bretherton's appeal? The 18 year old who masturbated for him, knowing he was married, was extraordinary kinky too, but as their behaviour was consensual it isn't ours or the regulators. As Bretherton (male) was named and she (female) wasn't, any investigation was automatically unfair and Bretherton just looks like someone who was mistreated because of his gender.

Firms took a harder line on males than in the past, whether there was deviancy or not.

Will be interesting to see how the Bakers' story plays out - still a lot to come on this one and not clear why someone was sacked based on unsubstantiated allegations. What was the outcome of the November hearing into the anonymity order in favour of the accuser (but not the accused)? Keep us updated on the court case please!

Anonymous 23 December 23 20:06: no, I wasn’t cleared of wrongdoing by the BSB, which didn’t have jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the House of Lords’ Commissioner. I am most certainly a villain and was found guilty of abusing my position and harassment. I don’t deserve sympathy, and I went through a process which was held to be fair.

Anonymous 24 December 23 07:51: but remember that the lawyer was not just accused of stripping but was found to have done so. So we know he wasn’t innocent.

Anonymous 24 December 23 08:59: A lot of the stuff that's supposedly 'icky' consists of proven allegations.

Anonymous 24 December 23 14:46: Bretherton is not appealing (in both senses).

Anonymous 25 December 23 07:59: Firms do not take a harder line on males than in the past, whether there was deviancy or not.

Anonymous 28 December 23 14:32: nothing further to come out in the Bakers case. There were findings of professional misconduct which led to the sacking.

Anonymous 23 December 23 20:06: the only person in the Lester matter who deserves sympathy and went through hell was Lord Lester’s victim, Ms Sanghera, who was sexually assaulted by Lord Lester. What makes Lord Lester’s conduct all the more horrific is that, as he well knew, Ms Sanghera had previously been a victim of sexual assault.

Anonymous 24 December 23 14:46: the only person who was mistreated in the Bretherton matter was Bretherton’s victim, who he was able to exploit due to the power imbalance between them. Remember that the law requires the accused to be named and anonymity is granted to the accuser. This is regardless of the sex of the parties. So a female defendant would be named and a male accuser would not be. Therefore, in this case, Bretherton does not not look like someone who was mistreated because of his sex. But you know this anyway - you are simply putting forward a bad faith position to promote your apologist agenda for those who commit sexual misconduct.

Thankfully, false accusations of sexual misconduct are rare and gender does not play a part in who is believed.

Hearing on 12 January; fasttracked now the judge has actually read the papers instead of relying on the accusers ex parte application

Lord Lester 23 December 23 11:26 - yes, the Times made it clear that the BSB did not interfere with the findings of the House of Lords (that Lester had sexually harassed Ms Sanghera and abused his position by offering to procure her a peerage in exchange for sex):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-lqz3n72pw

“The headline to our article “Lord Lester cleared of peerage-for-sex claims” (News, last week) incorrectly suggested, when read alone, that Ms Jasvinder Sanghera’s complaint to the House of Lords about Lord Lester’s conduct may have been dismissed. The article reported on the outcome of an investigation into Lord Lester by the Bar Standards Board. The findings of an earlier House of Lords committee are unaffected by this ruling. We apologise for any distress caused.“

Keep us updated on the WBD case. The SRA decided no action was warranted and there is apparently action being taken by the expelled partner. Will be interesting to see the truth of this one.

Not sure what the Cooley Associate did warranted police involvement. Surely they have better things to do.

Question Man is out in force here. We all hope 2024 is the year in which he gets the help from a mental health professional which he so badly needs.

Please can we have an update on the Bretherton case? He’s married!

Disappointed that you didn't mention the incident regarding the politician, the lighthouse and the trained cormorant.

I'M HAVING A BAKED POTATO.

Anonymous 31 December 23 08:39: remember that we know where the truth lies, as the KC adjudicating on the case made findings of fact (which as a matter of law are objective truths) that the partner engaged in misconduct.

@[email protected] - evidence please

@29@16:57 - actually the House of Lords voted that the process used against you was unfair.

And the BSB didn't find you guilty of any wrongdoing.

@[email protected] - the lawyer accused of stripping was female, not male! Faceplant doh!

@[email protected] which ones? A lot of the ones referenced in the article don't.

@[email protected] - please prepare a short, evidenced summary to confirm that, citing the number of males punished by the regulator following accusations of sexual misconduct. Keep it to each year for the post-war period please.

@[email protected] - yes more to come, there's a court case. What was the outcome of the November hearing on the anonymity order?

@[email protected] - Lord Lester deserves our sympathy as he was subjected to an unfair process. He wasn't going guilty of sexual assault - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately false accusations are very common when it comes to sexual misconduct.

Anonymous 08 January 24 17:29: Thanks but that is not correct! the initial vote was that the process was unfair. The matter was then remitted to the Committee to reconsider; the Committee concluded the process was fair; the Lords then reconsidered the matter and voted to approve the conclusion of the Committee that the process was fair. So the Lords decided the process was fair.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-12-17/debates/E9E8AE1E-3CD4-4166-BCF9-0765260054A9/PrivilegesAndConductCommittee

“The Senior Deputy Speaker

The noble Lord said that there were six contemporaneous witnesses. We invite Members to read their accounts.

In her own words,

“on the basis of the strong and cogent evidence of the complainant and her witnesses”,

the commissioner found that Jasvinder Sanghera was a victim of sexual harassment and that Lord Lester was guilty of a grave abuse of power. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct reviewed and endorsed this view. We ask the House to do the same. I hope the House will now agree to this report.

Motion agreed.”

The Hansard report speaks for itself. The House of Lords endorsed the findings of the Committee that (a) I was guilty; and (b) the process which determined my guilt was fair.

As for the BSB, they had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the Committee, endorsed by the House of Lords, and therefore did not do so.

Anonymous 09 January 24 10:43: no, he was male. And why are you saying he has a plant in his face?

@[email protected] - but the fact that Bretherton (the male) was named and his accuser (female) was not means the process was automatically unfair and Bretherton just looks like someone who was mistreated because of his gender. But then you know that anyway - and are simply putting forward a bad faith position to promote your apologist agenda for people who make unsubstantiated and serious allegations not to be part of a fair process.

Keep us updated on Bretherton's appeal.

#[email protected] - unfortunately, false accusations of sexual misconduct are very common and gender does play a part in who is believed. As we can see from the comments.

Anon 30 December 23 06:45: correct.

@Anonymous 09 January 24 19:12; Anonymous 10 January 24 08:51 - u ok hun

@9@20:00 - no, there was no second vote. The only vote found, as you say, the process to be unfair.

Agreed, the BSB didn't find Lord Lester guilty of any wrongdoing.

@[email protected] - yes, The Times confirmed that the BSB completely cleared Lord Lester of any wrongdoing.

Anon 30 December 23 06:45 - exactly. Male complainants would likewise have anonymity, so there is no difference in treatment.

You are right, Anon 03 January 24 10:16. One of the most unsettling aspects of Question Man's behaviour is the way he copies the wording of other commentators when providing his own responses - see Anonymous 10 January 24 08:51. You might expect such copying from a child, but not an adult.

Lord Lester 22 December 23 20:02 - nobody is going to forget you, Mo! You are the ultimate pantomime villain: Lord Flashheart meets Uncle Monty, with a generous dash of menace.