Their unanimous judgment was 'yikes'.
A law firm has quietly deleted its analysis of a Supreme Court judgment after it was pointed out that its article was completely wrong.
Brabners had a crack at reading comprehension after the highest court in the UK allowed an appeal in relation to a contract dispute, the intricacies of which are too boring to recount on RollOnFriday.
The complexities of Barton and others (Respondents) v Morris and another (2023) apparently proved too tedious for the Brabners team as well, because they published a summary of the case on the firm's website which mistook the dissenting opinion for the actual judgment.
There but for the grace of God.
It’s an easy mistake to make if you’re in a hurry and scroll straight to the end of the press summary where the dissenting opinion is set out, and skip over the actual judgment further up the document. Whoever hid it up there is the real villain.
Brabners' drive-by analysis resulted in a ‘key point to take away’ which was, as a result, the definitive point not to take away.
The firm’s exposure to speculative lawsuits by misled readers is limited due to both the likelihood hardly anyone read it, and mankind's natural antipathy towards contract dispute analysis. But, just to be sure, Brabners yanked its fail grade essay from public view after ROF pointed out the error.
The slip should provide comfort to trainees - or Brabners trainees at least - that anyone can bungle a research task. Unless a trainee actually wrote it, in which case it's a lesson to supervisors taking the credit to check delegated work carefully before they slip a steaming pile of horse apples onto the company website.
Brabners was too embarrassed to comment.