You wouldn't necessarily have rated ROF's chances.
An employment tribunal has lifted anonymity orders preventing a law firm from being named after RollOnFriday argued that its identity should not be hidden.
Last year a solicitor brought an employment tribunal claim against Trowers & Hamlins alleging disability discimination. When the story broke, she applied successfully to have her identity anonymised.
Trowers & Hamlins and its heavyweight litigation solicitors, Lewis Silkin, argued that if the tribunal was minded to grant her request, it should also make orders prohibiting Trowers & Hamlins from being identifiable in any future articles, in order to ensure that readers could not 'jigsaw' the claimant's identity together.
ROF only learned that Trowers & Hamlins was protected by an anonymity order and a reporting restriction during a follow-up investigation into an allegation that a few days before Trowers & Hamlins reported the solicitor to the SRA, she had made a report to the regulator about it.
Lewis Silkin informed ROF that the two orders in its client’s favour comprised a “wide-ranging prohibition against publishing matters likely to lead members of the public to identify the claimant or respondents”. The orders effectively made any future reporting on the matter impossible.
After the solicitor confirmed that she was comfortable that naming the firm would not jeopardise her anonymity, ROF asked Trowers to agree to amend the order.
It refused, and Lewis Silkin reminded ROF that "These orders remain in force indefinitely unless revoked and breach of the same could result in contempt of court proceedings”.
ROF pursued the matter despite Lewis Silkin’s warning that it could end in a tribunal hearing at which Trowers & Hamlins’ “rights in relation to costs are fully reserved”.
Possibly to the surprise of Trowers' legal team and its barrister, ROF’s man turned up on the right day for the hearing and in the right city (Bristol), clutching a ‘bundle’ that stretched to almost one and a half sides of A4.
ROF offered to read out its submissions, but Employment Judge Beever reassured the room that he had managed to read them in advance and was capable of retaining all 11 paragraphs of legal wizardry (ROF’s words, not his).
During the hearing, ROF took issue with Trowers' assertion that it wanted to remain anonymous for the benefit of the solicitor who had sued it. Its counsel hotly denied ROF's suggestion that Trowers was in fact motivated by a desire to prevent any more stories being published that might bring it adverse publicity.
Lewis Silkin’s submissions took slightly longer to air since they came to 159 pages. Luckily size isn’t everything and after reserving judgment at the hearing in January, the tribunal's 14 page verdict was handed down last week.
The tribunal said that "RoF is a well-known legal community website expressing an interest in reporting on the dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents” and that “RoF did not have a reasonable opportunity to make representations at the original hearing”.
Ruling for the orders to be lifted from Trowers & Hamlins, it said "there is a real and significant importance in RoF’s interest being able to report on the processes of the Tribunal".
A spokesperson for Trowers & Hamlins told RollOnFriday, "The claimant sought anonymity for themselves. Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, the firm supported ongoing anonymity to avoid jigsaw identification".
"The firm acted entirely appropriately in its referral to the SRA and the tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim in relation to this, and the full claim has been settled in what the firm considered was in the best interests of all parties".
It added, "The parties are not able to discuss the matter further due to strict confidentiality obligations".
The solicitor said, "As the matter has settled, I am naturally unable to comment further. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to thank Jamie for his determination in reporting on this matter and shining a necessary light on the wider facts of this case". (Aw, shucks.)
Lewis Silkin's fees must have been considerable, but if it’s any consolation for Trowers, it wasn’t free for ROF, either, costing £190 for the off-peak return from Paddington, Tesco meal deal and a night in the Leonardo Bristol Hotel.
Comments
266
22
This is hilarious
192
20
Jamie, was ‘ROF’s man’ you, Matthew or James? Whomever, very well done on sticking it to Trowers. And for having the cochones to pursue this and not be bullied on the threat of costs.
[Jamie: thanks! I've reinserted the bit of the claimant's quote which clears that up. Left out initially as praise feels awkward]
139
15
Soooo, the comments on a previous ROF article that there is no "awful toxic culture" or "management plots against juniors" at Trowers are about to age like milk...🐄
214
20
Seriously - Trowers instruct Lewis Silkin and counsel, RoF tips up with a sheet of A4 and hands them their arse on a plate. How extraordinarily embarrassing. And how did Trowers allow it to get to this stage? Presumably they never thought that RoF would call their bluff.
120
18
Hahahaha that the Claimant got the bag and the truth is about to come out anyway
148
19
Reporting a law firm to the SRA is not a step a junior takes lightly. The fact that Trowers/Lewis Silkin then fought so hard to keep this from seeing the light of day speaks volumes. Look forward to reading the follow up
148
19
googling the Streisand Effect and not doing any of this would have been a lot cheaper for trowers
112
30
I'd actually respect it if the firm would finally take some accountability over this whole unfortunate saga. No doubt they will continue to spin us the old yarn that they did no wrong...
119
22
It was retaliation by the firm. Pure and simple
130
24
Heavyweight Lewis Silkin - lols.
Well done RoF
147
20
"The full claim has been settled in what the firm considered was in the best interests of all parties"
Hilarious. I work there. They basically had to pay her £££ after a judge gave them a rollocking at a WP dispute resolution hearing.
If rumours are to be believed, it was far more than her original opening offer and the total sums in costs were eyewatering.
[...]
132
25
Many lawyers think all documents, especially legal submissions, should be as long as possible.
I have always taken the opposite view so it is heartening to see that one and a half pages beat 159 pages.
158
18
This almost defies belief.
First, hats off to RoF in general and Jamie in particular for going to such lengths and taking such risks over this.
Secondly, what the utter f*ck were Trowers / LS thinking? Bully a member of staff, mess it all up, pay them off, then bully RoF when they find out, threaten them, abjectly fail and have this mess spread all over the profession.
Why would ANYONE instruct either of these firms?
Jamie, you should ask Trowers for a refund of the cost of your value meal etc. Publish their response, please.
110
24
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
104
17
"Many lawyers think all documents, especially legal submissions, should be as long as possible."
A fair observation, but fair to say that one doesn't struggle to find litigants in person who think that two hundred pages of cosplay Victorian drafting is what the court is hoping to receive.
One dies a little bit on the inside every time a bundle of Dickensian gibberish gets forwarded on from a client with a "could you take a quick look and see if this is anything to worry about?".
To be honest, I think that the whole system could be greatly improved if the winning party was allowed to chose between getting their costs and delivering a number of electrical shocks to the testicles of the losing party equal to the number of pages of their original particulars.
Companies could choose to put up the CEO or the GC, just for the sake of fairness.
Not sure what to do with female claimants, haven't got that far, but we'll solve that problem once they start letting women into the profession.
106
14
The other thing to bear in mind is how difficult it is for people at the start of their careers in practice to litigate against their employer, especially if said employer is a big law firm. Yes the Employment Tribunal is generally costs neutral but there is still an ability to apply for adverse costs and in any event one party (usually the richer one) can always generate masses of costs for the other side through lengthy submissions (see here eg with massive bundles). Oh and solicitors can’t go bankrupt without destroying their career.
So fair do’s for pursuing this and securing a decent settlement; and to RoF for reporting on it.
91
13
Heads should roll for what happened.
But its Trowers. So they won't. Will probs be rewarded
84
15
In the words of a chorus of football fans... that is embarrassing.
101
15
not an employment lawyer but can someone who is advise on the procedures, prospects and risks of RoF making a standalone application for costs of this hearing given that they won?
litigants in person can apply for their costs and it would be hilarious to see if Trowers spent more money defending this than just paying Jamie his £190.
110
13
Superb stuff.
to be honest this fairly illustrates why RoF has more credibility than all the other legal rags put together.
110
16
Disgusting how Trowers have behaved. Clearly submitted that SRA report after the employee submitted his/hers in retaliation and no doubt the SRA were a disgrace both in delaying matters and being far more supportive of a law firm (will the SRA reconsider this with its top person given Trowers conduct on anonymity has now also come to light (still maintaining it was trying to protect the employee lol)). The settlement clearly should have happened immediately (or they should have just treated their people/perdon better) and given Trowers conduct on anonymity (awful), they no doubt only settled as they had behaved terribly and there was written evidence showing that which it wanted to avoid coming to light. Hopefully a lessons for Lewis Silkin too - quite rightly you have to be tough litigators but you aren’t the best just because you push everything to the nth degree - think about the behaviour of your client, the impact on a lawyers’ mental health, and reach a commercial resolution before your client (Trowers) gets embarrassed like this. The SRA and it’s demotivated case handlers should also be aware of the inequality of arms where it is getting one side of the story from a struggling employee (financially and mentally) vs. a top employment firm acting for another firm.
Long term nothing will change in law as the firm and the SRA drag these things out, damage the employee financially and mentally and then every now and again they settle. Firms are quite rightly tough on us as we need to do a good job for their clients and we are paid well but when someone is struggling in life, give them a chance and a break and build them back up - you don’t get into Trowers without having skills which if built on could make you brilliant.
ROF and the employee should be proud of being brave enough to stick it out. Clients and others should think about dealing with Trowers - they of course won’t
131
15
Knew the claimant at a previous firm. She was exceptionally bright and had high potential. I stated at the time that I would recommend her for a job in my team on qualification.
Devastated that she has left the profession over this but very pleased for her that she was brave enough to take them on and secured a settlement
92
14
Well done guys.
I had a similar experience at a law firm and I was granted an anonymity order following which they requested the same. The judge asked me if I had any objections and I said no as just wanted to be done with it. I thought they were cheeky buggers but everyone knows this about law firms (most of them anyway...).
109
22
I truly wonder if any of the super smart people in the Trowers senior teams involved in this will actually reflect on what they have done to that employee - or whether they will still just keep believing she was difficult and a nightmare and deserved what happened. Probably the latter which is such a shambles.
Trowers makes 140 million - you can deal with an employee suffering a mental health crisis - suck it up financially, support him or her, assist, performance plans, positivity, be caring whilst having high expectations once they are better, and even if it does go wrong and they leave - treat them with respect, engage properly on settlement once you realise there is evidence which is contrary to your position, don’t try to ruin them.
SRA a disgrace for not seeing this for what it clearly was - someone needs to do more digging on this. How long did they take to deal with each complaint? What was the outcome? Are they really confident that Trowers’ complaint was genuine - I highly doubt it
30
97
"Clients and others should think about dealing with Trowers"
Oh yeah, the clients are all avid RoF readers. They'll be talking of nothing but this for the whole afternoon.
"Hey Jim, have you seen that global widget sales are down by..."
"Quiet Goggins! Haven't you seen that our lawyers lost a minor hearing about news publishing in Birmingham against an obscure legal website that only lazy law nerds read. Everything else is on a backburner till I've digested the ramifications of it! We can't possibly instruct them for M&A again!"
Like, good work RoF, well done for fighting the good fight and great that we underachieving legal dorks can have a good laugh at Lewis Silkin and whatever a Trowers & Hamlins is, but be realistic about how many clients will be aware and/or give a tug.
84
14
Gr8 work Jamie sun!
Wang
71
15
'Rights' in relation to costs? In the Employment Tribunal? That's a new one.
78
22
NDA? OK. And..........breathe.
93
13
Imagine caring so much about your reputation that you threaten everyone under the sun with costs and reputational ruin...whilst simultaneously acting in a way likely to destroy your reputation
91
14
The sheer audacity of the spokesperson to still maintain their SRA referral was legit is staggering.
83
14
"The parties are not able to discuss the matter further due to strict confidentiality obligations"
Seems like another thinly veiled threat to Claimant shot across the bows.
[...]
79
19
Someone’s wife (or husband) has to shag someone who puts “quiet goggins” quotes in comments about a story where a young lawyer’z life was wrecked… that’s the key takeaway from that comment. Probably right to call me out on clients not caring though.
96
17
Management genuinely started to act like some of the Post Office execs
113
14
To anon at 10:58, you are wrong. I’m a senior lawyer at a bank, and I check out RoF every week. Largely because I want to see what’s happening at my old shop, but also for wider info on what’s happening in the profession. Trust me, this will really impact on both firms.
96
18
And the real winners are.... Lewis Silkin. Congratulations on charging your client for an epic, yet flawed, submission. Lawyering at its best!
87
15
Anonymous 20 February 26 12:14
Also currently a top google/news result
94
11
A bit disappointed that you failed to make a cost application Jamie. As well as your fares and the meal there would have been the time you spent drafting your submissions- an hour or two? Reckon £500 would have been fair. That apart well done.
76
13
"Someone’s wife (or husband) has to shag someone who puts "quiet goggins"..."
You're boldly assuming that they're limiting themselves to just one someone's wife.
17
75
I have it on good authority that LS did not get paid for any of this - not officially, anyway
84
13
I hope that, in the theme of this week, this article was posted on one of the respondent's birthday
77
14
Anonymous 20 February 26 14:09
How was it funded then?
Because i highly doubt an insurer would ever have covered it on the merits given what I know about some of the wider issues in the claim
75
15
Anonymous 20 February 26 14:09
Why would they threaten costs that they were not even incurring?
81
18
Anonymous 20 February 26 14:09
Huh? Why are they making costs threats then? How was it all funded?
I heard they had 2-3 LS lawyers, plus Counsel, at each of the 4-5 preliminary hearings.
87
18
Well done ROF. Supports the well held and wider view that Lewis Silkin are pretty lightweight with their litigation capability.
88
16
So many people owe the claimant the biggest apology
78
16
As a 'difficult' claimant, who has been traumatised by Trowers for over three years, I was delighted to read this news. Wait until you hear the one about their 'work' with WhistleblowersUK.
69
15
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
73
16
Journalism at its finest. Bravo.
74
15
Love the idea of ROF handing up a postage stamp sized submission up against War and Peace.
76
20
From the linked judgment:
"The Claimant had reported the First Respondent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on 13 December 2023 and had informed the First Respondent of the report.
On 22 December 2023, the First Respondent reported the Claimant to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Claimant became aware of the First Respondent’s report in April 2024 and had in the meantime resigned their employment in March 2024."
Why on earth did the original judgment leave out that the Claimant had reported them first?!