supreme court brabners

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.

brabners analysis

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.

LU iconFresh start desired? Get LawyerUp on the App Store and Google Play.


Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 17 February 23 07:36

At least Brabnerz write their own articles, unlike Womble Bond Dickinson

Embarrassing 17 February 23 07:42

It’s like putting a moldy piece of cheese in the window of your shop.  If anybody had actually heard of this firm it would be absolutely awful.

As nobody has, it will probably make no difference at all.  

Anonymous 17 February 23 07:57

Perhaps, just perhaps, the supervisor was somehow distracted…

Anonymous 17 February 23 08:05

+1 credit for at least attempting an original analysis and not just copy/pasting one written by another firm and changing a few words

Lord Lucan 17 February 23 09:35

Everyone f**ks up at some point. 

Hopefully the individual involved isn’t taking this too seriously. It happens and it’ll be forgotten in a couple of weeks. 

Unless of course you f**k up all the time, at which point your career is heading towards Womble Bond Dickinson and you have my sympathy. 

Anonymous Anonymous 17 February 23 10:12

Any text to be published needs to be proof checked. Basic and simple. Extremely bad for the image of the legal sector.

Anonymous 17 February 23 13:13

Brabners is a bit close to Bra burners for my liking.  Obviously a regional player, probably northern.  

Seen it worse 19 February 23 12:58

At least this was just a client puff piece.

Many years ago, as a junior litigation lawyer at a Revenue authority in a jurisdiction somewhere to the east of Australia, I was asked to defend a decision on an income tax assessment by the specialist tax law team where they had quoted as law and based their decision on a Court of Appeal judgment.  The unfortunate bit is that the parts they relied on were under the heading "The parts of the Commissioner's Submissions With Which We Disagree".  Thankfully, even as a junior I had the ability to quickly go to my department head, explain the complete F-up, and a fair and swift settlement was quickly reached rather than me having to defend utter shite in the High Court. 

Anon 19 February 23 20:54

Show me the Lawyer who has never made a mistake and I will show you a dangerous liar. 

I hope that this event won’t blight anyone’s career. 

Related News