The words of W.B. Yeats in his often quoted poem Easter 1916 could be applied in part – the first part – to Legal Geek which I attended yesterday in London: “All changed. Changed utterly. A terrible beauty is born”. The word terrible referred to the terror experienced by the repressed, as Yeats saw it. Covid 19 … Continue reading LegalGeek: changed, yes; a terrible beauty, no (Guest Post)
A striking feature of many corporate or other scandals is how organisations and their lawyers construct a system of mutually assured irresponsibility. Some of this is done artfully, some without even thinking about it. The problem often, subtly or unsubtly, comes down to this: the client says they did what they did because the lawyer … Continue reading Mutually Assured Irresponsibility: An Example from the Post Office
The Levitt Report into trouble at RICS is a document which may reverberate for a while. To anyone who has expressed doubts about whether an independent review is really independent here we have a blow by blow account that will give sceptics, especially any who have had cause to doubt a Fieldfisher review, a hefty … Continue reading The Levitt Report: Independence Frayed
Given the importance of the case, and that I have written about it before twice, I thought I should probably comment on the decision that there was no case to answer in the Hillsborough prosecution of SYP’s then solicitor, Peter Metcalf. The judge’s reasoning can be found here, alongside the press summary, and the important … Continue reading Hillsborough III: No case to answer
A quick post this one and then I have to go and do other things for a bit. Readers might be interested in an example piece of evidence which, for me, crystallises the problems at work. It shows the ways in which failures to prosecute ethically may link to failures to govern the company ethically … Continue reading Post Office III: Pleas Displease Me
A few extra points on what questions are posed the Post Office case now I have had a chance to dig into the detail a bit. The Court of Appeal praised the diligence and thoroughness of the post-conviction disclosure carried out in relation to the appeals (paragraph 61 of the Hamilton judgment). I think it … Continue reading Post Office II: Contempt, recusal, culture
Hamilton and Others-v-Post-Office  EWCA Crim 577 is a pretty gut wrenching tale of corporate misdeeds. All the wrong doing is rather faceless at the minute, but it cannot – one hopes – remain that way for too much longer. For reasons which I will make clear some of those faces will very likely be … Continue reading The Post Office ‘where were the lawyers?’ post
The FT have prised open some details on a case last heard in 2019 which illustrates some of the interesting problemns inherent in independent investigations. In this case, Ms A claimed unfair constructive dismissal and sex and disability discrimination, which included an allegation that she was raped by a UBS employee and failures in the … Continue reading Independence MsA takes
The profession has certain stories it tells itself which are probably not true. One such is exposed by an interesting piece of US research by Listokin and Noonan (published here and available without a paywall, I think, here. That story is that, “lawyers are uniquely unhappy”, in particular that they suffer higher levels of mental … Continue reading Sloshed not sick?
The travails of Duncan Lewis, Stephanie Harrison QC and the rest of her team, in the R (DVP & Others) v SSHD EWHC 606 (Admin) [the DVP case] can be seen as grist to the Government's anti-activist lawyers mill. It's a toe-curling judgment. I am going to talk about the facts of the case at … Continue reading Candour in Context: who’s activism should we spotlight?