Lawyers' Reputations Exposed to Public Eye
In a worrying turn for individual lawyers, Private Eye has managed to prevent Michael Napier, former President of the Law Society, from using an injunction to stop it publishing details of a complaint against him. Napier’s lawyers failed in their pursuit of an injunction after the Court of Appeal backed an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Eady in the High Court refusing to grant a gagging order. This effectively means that thousands of disciplinary rulings against lawyers accused …
In a worrying turn for individual lawyers, Private Eye has managed to prevent Michael Napier, former President of the Law Society, from using an injunction to stop it publishing details of a complaint against him. Napier’s lawyers failed in their pursuit of an injunction after the Court of Appeal backed an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Eady in the High Court refusing to grant a gagging order.
This effectively means that thousands of disciplinary rulings against lawyers accused of misconduct can now be publicised whether the complaint is upheld or not. If you thought ATD was important before, you’re really going to need your wits about you now.
So, will a culture widely perceived as steeped in arse-covering turn into a nightmare of paranoia? Who knows but we just stuffed our pensions into teflon stocks…
May 21, 2009
This could damage professional reputations even if no wrongdoing found just b the fact someone has made a complaint. It’s totally disproportionate.
May 21, 2009
effectively naming and shaming, any vindictive client can now ruin your career. with all the other risks that’s just great.
May 21, 2009
I understood that only decisions were to be reported (which they are anyway on the SRA website)
May 21, 2009
God forbid that someone should be allowed to publish the objective fact that a complaint has been made against a lawyer.
You can report that a civilian has been arrested for a crime that they may or may not have committed. Why should lawyers get special treatment? Because they get paid lots, are incredibly pompous about the importance of their professional duties, and generally have a pathological fear of actually justifying their actions?
May 21, 2009
no beating around the bush at 4. obviously not a lawyer then.
May 21, 2009
So Mike Napier does a job pro bono, wins and 5 years later he gets stuck with all this for his trouble. Why bother?
May 22, 2009
is no 4 the president of the law society? Apart from the ‘paid lots’ bit , sounds spot on!
May 26, 2009
No 6 – Do you really think a complaint would have been made against him if he did apparently “win” – i think not… there is ALOT more to this story I suspect….. Bring on Private Eye’s full article…
May 28, 2009
Brilliant!! This is long overdue. How many times have solicitors got away with wrong doing because they see themselves above the law – especially someone as “supposedly untouchable” as Michael Napier”?? How did he get his CBE if he was being formally investigated?
May 29, 2009
I’ve obviously missed the point of this story – can someone explain? As I see it from what’s been said so far:
1. Michael Napier acted this guy for no fee out of a sense of public duty
2. He won the case
3. But it turned out there was a potential (not actual) conflict of interest
4. And that was wrong so Michael Napier got a reprimand from the Law Society
5. But hey, that didn’t satisfy the guy who seems to have got his career back as a result of Napier’s efforts
6. So now Napier must be metaphorically set in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit.
7. And as I said, I’ve completely lost the plot. What is going on?
May 29, 2009
Exxon, everyone’s favourite flavouring.
June 1, 2009
Mad MacNeil
seems like you have well and truly missed the point on this one……
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/news.php?
June 11, 2009
If Napier went to these extreme lengths to gag Private Eye, how many other individuals has Napier misled or “ruined” by abusing his level of authority?. Surely the fact that Mr.Ford has stood up against him and finally reached this far in uncovering the REAL truth… many more cases are going to come to light as a result of this … So this now begs the question: Did Napier stand down from the LSB because he has more to hide….?? I suspect this is not a one off “accidental” case.