Can we get some kind of 'content warning: cringe' banner on articles like this please? Someone save us from insipid girl boss influencers, they are as bad as the sigma grind set crypto investor/ drop shipping course bros.
Anyone selling courses on how to do a thing, having never successfully done that thing should be laughed off the internet.

Legal influencers are like a dog barking at night - it's annoying, but you just have to try and ignore them for your own sanity and hope they get muzzled or put on a lead eventually.

Imagine being on Tik Tok in your 40s

"Imagine being on Tik Tok in your 40s"

You are not a 'disruptor' obviously like Ms Stephenson.

"Anyone selling courses on how to do a thing, having never successfully done that thing should be laughed off the internet."

Ah! What is it about the woman with tatoos that makes you so uncomfortable, hmmm?

What is it about change that makes you so afraid? Why is her success a problem to you? Hmmmm?

(carry on with similar passive aggressive gibberish until the heat death of the universe, or until rational criticism ceases)

She seems deranged.

Those who can't, teach.

Seeing her LinkedIn posts is like seeing Facebook "hun" posts... some random shit take with a whole load of simpering, unquestioning supporters posting "u OK hun?" and saying how the 3rd party is obviously scum. As for the comment someone made previously about people not laying into Eli Albrecht? Bullshit. I posted on here myself about what an annoying self-absorbed holier-than-thou t*** he came across as and hoped that his exit from big law coincided with him shutting the hell up. I haven't seen his "oh kids, oh religion" stuff for a while, so hopefully that has happened.

In fact... look at the comments on the Eli Albrecht article. Majority of people think he's a t***: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/gibson-dunn-lawyer-confesses-ive-lost-touch-life-outside-office-and-quits-biglaw

Guys I think you've missed the punchline here which was in your original article - namely that she took out over £600k in director loans while moving all the assets to Plume

Unitiated could think it's just a story about blaming her business failure. As many commenters have said, this isn't about trying and failing - it's about the apparent dishonesty

@09:24

"hun post" is the perfect term to describe the smug drama chasing tone of these people.

ROF & Legal Cheek vs Alice Stephenson.

The new Biggie vs Pac.

East Side vs West Side.

Stay strapped, homies.

I don't recall the last time I saw an influencer talk about improving their competence, they always focus on unwavering self-assurance, even in the face of common sense.

The greatest irony of the era of the girl boss is that they think they are beating men at their own game by emulating the most extreme and stereotypical behaviours, without realising that men don't want to follow other men who act that way.

They then wonder why men won't give them the respect they think they deserve but will show respect and deference to Glenda from finance who just so happens to be collaborative, competent and never feels the need to tell people how great she is.

@ Anymous 09.10 - Hi Mrs. Stephenson top of the morning to you.

I know as an egotist you don't like being told home truths but don't you think your time might be better spent maybe paying off those creditors you've screwed over, HMRC and perhaps actually manage your unregulated law firm?

Happy Friday sweetheart, love the pink hair and tatoos.

Y.A

You know Stephenson is on the wrong side of history when you find yourself agreeing with the commentary of legal recruiters lol: TCB's comments are spot on here. Many parallels to be drawn between this episode and the unqualified politicians during COVID who preached about quarantine/tough choices while having parties and giving contracts to their mates.

Who are you arguing against? You're pretty much just repeating what this article says? (i.e., that most of ROF clowned on Eli too).

She doesn't give a f*** yet is back on TikTok being a child so clearly it's struck a nerve. It's sad we live in a world where if we find someone vile, it's because they are a woman or it's because of their race, or etc, etc, etc. We can't just find someone vile because of their narcissism.

Anyway keep up the good work RoF, clearly you were threatened with something so you've had to 'balance the books' with this article. But it has enabled her to have more vacuous internet space, for which we are all eternally grateful.

“They are either threatened or jealous, often both, but it’s these behaviours from others that prove YOU are winning, Alice”, he added. She's not going to shag you mate. She's done her back in.

This doesn't look like 'balancing the books' to me, Yawn. This is ROF allowing her to be hoisted by her own petard.

The beauty of LinkedIn is that you don't have to follow her.

09:52 Girlboss absolutely banging it out of the park

It's not the "starting a law firm" that's the most difficult bit, it's the running a successful lawfirm (however you define success in terms of time/money etc.)...

Her response to the whole thing has been so embarrassing, as well as not responding to legitimate questions from people. Just not a serious person.

Imagine her being your boss... so embarrassing...

On google, Stephenson Law's website takes you to Plume.

Plume's google ratings are all for Stephenson Law.

This is a case of phoenixing, which is an immoral and unethical practice, and is breach of SRA Principles.

Alice has not shown any accountability for the £0.5m loan to herself, £0.8m tax liability or £1.5m debt.

It's disgusting that many of her creditors are law firms in developing countries owed three to four figure sums (which is a lot for those countries).

If she had any sense of human decency, morality or ethics, she would have paid these invoices before liquidating.

Instead she's made a few tiktoks using expletives (grow up you big child) and continues to promote her book, which is a story about her bad life decisions as a teen onwards.

Most of the sheep supporting her or showing solidarity with her are not solicitors or barristers, apart from Sahar F and a couple of others.

She should be ashamed and should donate all proceeds from her book sales to the creditors.

I’m absolutely not going to apologise for taking on a couple of online bullies. ROF if you’re going to report on this please do it properly. Please don’t support bullying behaviour. And please get your facts right (not an “in-house recruiter”).

I thought that was what an ‘in-house legal services provider’ was, sorry Helen - amended. 

Hi Helen, thank you for so bravely taking on a couple of online bullies. Any comment on the failed firm, the huge unpaid tax bill, the £600k "loan", and the £499 "how to start a law firm" course? We're all ears. Thanks

Thanks Jamie. And the online bullying? Maybe for your next article? I don’t know any of the parties involved, but I can’t bear to see this sort of behaviour. Wonder why comments have been deleted? Please don’t support this.

@Helen Goldberg, it's great that you're against online bullying, but it seems like you and Alice were bullying Tom CB with your snide comments towards him without addressing his polite comments.

Did Alice tell you why she gave herself a half a million pound loan and failed to pay nearly a million pounds to HMRC (taxpayer money) and other creditors?

I assume as a well wisher of Alice, you held her accountable by asking her these basic questions?

Don't you think she's promoting bullying behavior herself by using expletives in her tiktok videos, which sets a bad example for children and other tiktok users.

As I said I don’t know the parties and don’t know all the facts. And that was my original point. If you don’t know all the facts you shouldn’t be taking sides and making negative comments.

@Helen Goldberg - asking questions isn’t bullying, especially when there appears to be potential dishonesty regarding the reason for the rebrand. The guy had made no reference to gender before you brought it up, which was an odd response to pretty reasonable comments.

Or are we in a place now where no one can say anything less than celebratory for risk of being labelled a bully?

The Statement of Affairs consists of facts.

@anon you do you.

@Helen Goldberg. Thanks for clarifying that you don't know the parties and don't know all the facts.

I agree with your comment that if you don't know all the facts that you shouldn't take sides and make negative comments.

Conversely people who admit to not knowing all the facts shouldn't take sides and make positive comments or come to the defence of someone.

Perhaps those making comments that are wrongly being called negative or bullying know the pertinent details (loan to herself, HMRC tax avoidance, and not paying creditors) that need to be addressed by Alice, but she has failed to discuss these.

You're an intelligent corporate lawyer and COO who is an expert on due diligence. Your comment may have been well intentioned sisterhood, but you were backing the wrong horse.

"As I said I don’t know the parties and don’t know all the facts. And that was my original point. If you don’t know all the facts you shouldn’t be taking sides and making negative comments."

Yet you took the side of Ms Stephenson and made snide LinkedIn comments in response to someone raising completely valid points about her dodgy business practices.

Big thanks to Helen for playing the useful idiot for me.

Just think, without people like her (who I'll never give a penny to) I'd have to face public scrutiny over my unexplained personal loans and huge unpaid tax liabilities alone!

Happily with people like her around those kind of questions can all be easily squawked away as mean 'bullying' by people who just must have some kind of problem with my identity.

Alice has sought to control the narrative by deleting negative comments and calling people bullies despite not having actually addressed anyone’s questions. This is not about what she looks like (I know loads of great female lawyers, I know loads of great lawyers with tattoos). This is about someone who is telling the world they are someone to listen to; and monetising that through social media and book sales and other self promotion- without answering what are fairly important questions about integrity.

Integrity impacts us all and most lawyers do not want a disrupted version of lawyering where integrity, proper business practices, honesty and transparency are ignored as stuffy and outdated

Helen pretends she doesn’t know the facts despite forensically having been through the comments - which include reference to some fairly clear facts.

So, let’s hear what that massive loan to self was for? How it was in the interest of the company? How she can say plume has reviews etc when they are not for plume, how she can say they have a track record when they apparently don’t….

Tom CB was bang on. He was polite and his sensible questions were ignored.

Well done to rof for reporting this. This isn’t a witch hunt. This is about ensuring that integrity of the profession isn’t drowned in the noise around diversity. Lady Hale is my law boss. Lydia is up there too.

@helen not one of the comments she deleted was bullying. Just politely asking for some answers to which Alice replied 'Get over it' before posting some very embarrassing and childish tiktok videos

Ultimately she has been found out. I've had a feeling something like this has been coming for a long time. Fortunately for her she has managed to brainwash 70k people into thinking everything she touches turns to gold (after the tough start I think she might have mentioned once or twice). She's taken her eye off the ball regarding her primary business, putting her employees futures at risk and shortpaying HMRC to the tune of 800k which will have been built over many months or even years. I would have had much more respect if she had owned the situation, held her hands up and admitted her failings, instead of blaming HMRC and playing a victim (she's know this was coming and continued to take money out of the company) and posting childish videos, but she refused to do that so she will have to put up with the backlash

Helen you're a good person but please stop here. The facts are truly awful for Alice. Imagine this were one of your clients with this fact pattern (600k loan to self; bankrupted company; SME law firms unpaid; HMRC unpaid; assets in a newco; tell everyone to f*ck off). If anything the online commentary is mild. There are a handful of personal comments but by far mostly people are pointing to these business practices. As a COO you know these facts look and smell awful. The only people making this about gender and tattoos etc are Alice and her supporters. Please don't let your laudable desire to defend someone being criticised online put you on the wrong side of this. Tom's comments were polite and valid by the way and not deserving of you describing him as a bully.

I can't begin to imagine how awful Alice must feel now but the sad truth is that she did this to herself. As many have said, if she had taken responsibility this would be a very different story.

Well yes, it's far easier to run a business if we don't need to worry about irritations like taxes. Silly sausage. Hope the SRA actually do something worthwhile here.

if ur not allowed 2 comment or take sides without knowing all the facts, that’s going 2 rule out ne1 voicing pretty much every opinion, ever

An important point is getting lost in the noise: Alice is very smart.
By foregrounding her identity - tatts, pink hair, teenage mum, feminist icon - and growing a thousands-strong army of devoted fans, she's made herself an undesirable target for people who don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of diversity issues, including those who should perhaps be taking a close look at what's going on here.
We can see people here who should know better twisting themselves into knots to excuse what's happened because Alice appears to be on Our Team.
People have mentioned the SRA. Good luck. They probably follow her. And who wants the hassle of provoking thousands of LoonedIns?

Another thing:
I see from this week's RoF that another solicitor has been reprimanded in the courts partly for having sworn at another solicitor in a hearing. Sure: bad.
Yet here we have Alice telling (albeit lip synching) people to fuck off, which doesn't seem particularly becoming of the profession, either. But it's fine because... she's a rebel?
if it's now the case that:
~swearing at one person in 'privately' in the heat of the moment is not fine for the profession, but
~swearing on video in multiple videos you've posted yourself is fine for the profession
Then I'd like to know the SRA to tell me the rules, please.

"Or those cool ex magic circle ones” responded Goldberg."

Seems quite like bullying to me. Especially in response to a legitimate question raised ABOUT SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT PAID TAX PAYERS NEARLY A MILLION QUID

I would expect those who have had hard starts to life to be very keen to pay their taxes (not themselves) as that money should* be used to help people out

*Not a political point but govt is sh*t

I have long described Alice privately as a cult of personality. I did so on the basis that it was a derogatory term. Watching vast numbers of people on LinkedIn and elsewhere come out to shill for her even against the backdrop of extremely questionable business practices and very significant losses to the taxpayer only leads me to the conclusion that I was in fact completely right from the outset.

Credit to Prags, at least he isn’t all over social media crybullying

Isn’t that because he’s in jail?

Shes not a lawyer ! FFS non practicing means she is not a lawyer !

I hadn't heard of her until the current trouble. The Companies House search I did made it look a bit complex. If she owes £600k to the creditors she should be paying that back. She is not allowed to take client, reputation etc to her new non solicitor enterprise as the administrator presumably will be selling that work etc in the usual way so that needs to be checked to ensure none of that has gone on.

I set up on my own. So it is a bit unfair of her to suggest those saying tax payers should be paid back are people who have never set up on their own. Plenty of female solicitors set up on their own and believe it or not pay all their tax on time!

I am so pleased for her and all she has managed to achieve.

._.

Hey nonny nonny no 15 December 23 09:24

Seeing her LinkedIn posts is like seeing Facebook "hun" posts... some random shit take with a whole load of simpering, unquestioning supporters posting "u OK hun?" and saying how the 3rd party is obviously scum. As for the comment someone made previously about people not laying into Eli Albrecht? Bullshit. I posted on here myself about what an annoying self-absorbed holier-than-thou t*** he came across as and hoped that his exit from big law coincided with him shutting the hell up. I haven't seen his "oh kids, oh religion" stuff for a while, so hopefully that has happened.

I think you might have misread the point made about Eli Albrecht, which was that people HAD called BS on his claims of turning down BigLaw partnership to do something else, despite his years of bossing top-drawer M&A while always being 100% engaged with his family. In fact the point made was that calling sexism in the Alice Stephenson case was BS, and people have reacted fairly negatively to the lawfluencers giving it large online before crashing and burning, whether male or female.

Steal £1m from the client account : SRA lose their fudging minds.

Steal £1m from a bank : S0-19 kick your door in.

Steal £1m from HMRC: Sycophantic “Law Disrupters” (pronounced “Uhn-Ehm-Ploy-Ed”) support your life choices.

Honest Lawyer has pretty much written the response I would have written myself.

I established a sole practice in the early eighties and subsequently managed a 40+ lawyer firm over an extended period. Now, after more than 45 years in practice - but without a single tattoo and a relatively modest number of contacts on LinkedIn - I have taken up a consultancy role with a vibrant young firm.

At no time has any firm with which I have been involved failed to provide for all of its tax and NI obligations on a current basis. All of those firms paid their staff on time, were never once taken to a tribunal by a disgruntled employee and generally ran without any overdraft. The only time while I was managing partner we borrowed money was for an extensive refurb and IT upgrade which loan was paid back ahead of time. These firms never failed to pay overseas lawyers and other third-party professionals in the way that Alice Stephenson’s firm appears to have done. Were the Stephenson firm’s obligations to those third parties covered by clients’ payments on account and simply not passed on? Another question for those who are looking at whether there may have been criminal conduct?

Whilst there are many who clearly play by the rules who comment on ROF’s stories of the rogues in the profession, I can’t help thinking that the likes of Alice Stephenson and Big Wad – seemingly of a similar age profile – who have no apparent moral compass, who treat the badge of a practising certificate as a passport to do as they wish, who pay no attention to any ethical standard and who show no concern at all as to how their narcissism affects those on whose lives they trample with seeming abandon. I’m not sure what’s worse, the indiscriminate way in which innocents have been screwed by their conduct or the likes of Stephenson’s cheerleaders who also seem unable to distinguish right from wrong.

Maybe there is gap in the way solicitors are now educated, trained and brought up to respect the trust which is supposed to be vested in us by those for whom we act and with whom we transact. There is a massive chasm between the fundamental tenets of the profession and the way that Stephenson and Big Wad have conducted themselves.

The thing that blows my mind about her cult following…

This isn’t not being able to pay some suppliers or a corp tax bill. PAYE and VAT is never yours in the first place. Not paying it whilst paying yourself a £600k loan is just immoral.

The “we as solicitors do it for clients all the time” argument is irrelevant. That doesn’t make it right. And solicitors are allegedly held to a higher standard.

Unless she can justify the loan and it continues, it’s simply not online bullying.

Any client or employee still with NewCo should be questioning whether they should be. Not least because there is every chance HMRC and the SRA won’t let it slide.

Well I do run a business and do it better than you - because I actually make a profit. I also don't behave like a shyster asking gullible marks to pay $495 for advice on how to start a law firm. I give the advice for free, as you should.

“It’s horrible that you have to be subject to such criticism when you haven’t done anything wrong and yet some people get away with a whole lot worse (those who perhaps don’t want the industry to change)”, agreed Sonay Erten, a TedX speaker.
-------
The only think better than a "TedX speaker" on LinkedIn is a "future TedX speaker."

I'm not sure what's more hilarious - the meltdown of this cringe law 'influencer' or the endless circle-yerking from her cultish LI followers

Working title for the next book:

“Out (of) Law”

She's left a tangled web. How long was the writing on the wall? Looks like she spun the IP work and team out into a newco last year, which she (not the firm it span out from) owns 20%, and the rest to the unregulated practice. From the last couple of year's accounts the liabilities were growing, so wonder how much planning went on to this point.

I always found it quite easy to understand her. Narcissist with massive chip on the shoulder. Easy.

What I found hard to understand, however, was why this accumulated so many followers as the whole schtick was completely vapid and boring. There was never any information about what she was doing that was so great and disruptive. It was constant moaning about the legal industry but there was never an alternative offered (other than getting a tattoo and getting up the duff). As it happens - big surprise - the alternative was to run a low-class, shouty cult of personality that made no money. Wow. Truly disruptive.

I could never understand why anyone felt impressed by this. Hi, Helen.

I've read her book.

Got a few tattoos.

Now just to loan myself hundreds of thousands and piss off HMRC

Things she seemed to claim was new for her firm (if I missed any please add)

(a) subscription model
(b) share options for employees
(c) Fully remote working (no office(s))
(d) the boss is female, has tattoos and came from a non-traditional background (although she seems to have gone to private school unlike 93 percent of the population).

for me a is simply a retainer model. b well not much an attraction if the firm goes under. c No different to many firms. Most firms are hybrid now. d well she is a bit different to white middle class public school boy but there are much more impressive female leaders out there.

beyond that she just shouts 'I am a disruptor' a lot.

This is the gift that keeps on giving. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/finance-boss-duped-new-firm-about-600000-fraud-conviction/5118243.article
Just imagine if there was another £600kish debt connected with this company that a regulated individual was unable to pay.

Must have been interesting working at stephenson law. This guy is mentioned in her book:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/law-firm-finance-head-lied-about-fraud-conviction-to-get-job

This is Cru, isn't it?

@00:26 - yes, I remember that bit well...

"So I said to him, disruptively, that nobody steals from this firm except for Me, Me, and maybe a newly incorporated entity that ostensibly deals in only unregulated work and shouldn't in any way be seen as a direct successor to this rapidly collapsing legal practice! Now get out!"

Surely a DBS check is a pre-requisite for an accountant? Even a quick Google brings up stuff about his fraud conviction. The lack of due diligence is shocking.

“When people who have never run a business think they can do it better than you”.

Wouldn’t be hard to run a business better than her.

LOL!

Anyone care to explain/speculate how Plume Group seems to be owed alot of money by Stephenson Law (whose main asset is the loan to Ms Stephenson) will work out?