Legal Business

‘I never saw this as impossible’ – Mishcons’ Shaistah Akhtar on the case that won her Commercial Litigation Team of the Year

Posted on |
Legal Business Awards 2024 Mishcon de Reya

Mishcon de Reya‘s hard-fought victory for Nigeria in Nigeria v P&ID saw the firm take home Commercial Team of the Year at the Legal Business Awards in September. The team assisted Nigeria in challenging a $6.6bn arbitral award made in favour of BVI-incorporated shell company Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) in 2017. With interest accruing at $1m a day, the team sought to overturn the award on the basis of fraud.

But, when the firm was instructed in 2019, Nigeria was almost three years past the deadline to bring the set-aside challenge. Before the team could even begin to present its fraud case (the result of a massive global investigation effort), it had to fight to extend the deadline – and achieved an unprecedented extension, granted in July 2020.

The team’s hard work paid off. On 23 October 2023, judgment was handed down in Nigeria’s favour by Mr Justice Knowles. It was found that P&ID had obtained the award, now worth over $11bn, by fraud.

Shaistah Akhtar, partner in Mishcons’ dispute resolution group, spoke to LB about getting the call from Nigeria, the biggest hurdles the team overcame, and the pressures of a case with national and international repercussions.

How did the instruction come about and what led to your involvement?

We were approached on behalf of the Nigerian government who had had a series of arbitral awards made against them and, in 2019, enforcement action had started in the English court. At that point, we were asked to step in and advise.

There was a general suspicion that there was something very wrong with the underlying contract and the arbitration. There was already a criminal investigation, which had started uncovering some evidence. We got to work pretty quickly. The die was almost cast at that point. It’s very difficult to challenge these awards. The statistics speak for themselves – the latest Commercial Court figures show only 4% of these cases succeed. And if you’re outside the statutory time limit for bringing a challenge, as we were, there’s an even bigger hurdle to overcome.

With implications on a national scale, did the pressure start to mount?

There was a two-pronged pressure: the award itself, but also a $200 million security payment which had to be paid into court in 60 days. The clock was ticking, so there needed to be some urgent action taken.

We dealt with this by offering a guarantee instead of a payment which was more practical.

The award itself was incurring interest at $1 million a day. At one point our opponents applied to double the security amount to $400 million. They had calculated that by the time it got to trial, they would require another $200 million. Within a year of taking on the case, we had the security requirement removed altogether.

The award itself was the equivalent of around a third of the country’s foreign reserves, multiple times its education, health and security budgets. If you can imagine, what amounted to an $11-billion liability affected everything on an economic level.

On the face of it, it looked like a tall order. The deadline for challenging the award itself was 28 days and, at this point, we were almost three years out of time.

But the client was determined to fight. The more evidence emerged, the more we saw the injustice of it. This award should never have been made.

It was a huge relief for the client – the end result – in terms of removing that liability and pressure from a country of 200 million people. People who, like the rest of the world, are dealing with the economic impact of COVID and other domestic pressures.

What was a particular challenge you faced during the case, and how did you overcome it?

We’ve had a lot of coverage on the final judgment and of course that’s important. But there were a number of hurdles that we overcame as we went along. The removal of the security was a big step forward. It was a reflection of the Court’s view of the strength of our case: once we got the extension of time, there was no need for the government to have this money tied up for the next two or three years. The biggest hurdle in my view was obtaining the extension of time to challenge the award. In terms of the length of time you can bring these challenges outside of the statutory deadline, historically the authorities have allowed a few weeks or couple of months – whereas in our case we were granted an unprecedented extension of almost three years.

This was a massive step forward because it had never been done before and according to commentary in the legal press at the time no one, based on the statistics, thought we would be successful.

The Cranston judgment opened the gate to the rest of the challenge, which then ensured that justice was delivered. If the judge had decided that, for policy reasons, awards are final, it was too late, and we hadn’t demonstrated that there was an exceptional case here, that would have been the end of it.

Was there a key moment in the case that stood out for you?

One of the key features of a fraud case is that people assume that there is one key piece of evidence that uncovers everything. It’s never that simple.

There was a long process of investigation. We had to go round the world getting disclosure orders, against banks, against third parties.

We had about 15 million documents, just from our side. We sifted through that to find evidence, but there was also evidence that we procured from other sources and evidence that was provided by our opponents. It was a long process of investigation, probing and then piecing it all together to present a picture that tells the judge the story.

Were there any surprises during the trial?

One of the shocking things about the case which emerged was that, during the historic arbitration process, our opponents had obtained our clients’ internal, privileged documents to see what advice was being given and the government’s internal strategy at the time. There was no proper explanation for this or any admission that any bribes had been paid to procure this confidential and privileged material.

So that meant that the arbitration was a fundamentally unfair process, and the award was corruptly obtained. At one point in the trial, it was said that the Court should not: ‘apply the

rules of Whitehall to what happens in Abuja’. The justifications, the defence, the arguments that were being put forward were pretty extraordinary.

One of the mantras that the other side adopted throughout this trial was: ‘that’s just what happens in Nigeria’. This quite rightly did not convince the Judge.

What did your team in particular bring to the case?

We were all aware that it was a big hill to climb. It was very much a team effort. We had an excellent counsel team and a great team at Mishcon working around the clock, including during lockdown.

Sir Ross Cranston was brought out of retirement to hear the extension application in July 2020. The hearing took place remotely, at the height of lockdown. The Judge found that there was good reason based on the strong prima facie evidence that this case should go forward and the deadline for challenging the award should be extended. In the final judgment, Mr. Justice Knowles acknowledged that Sir Ross Cranston had been courageous in making that decision.

I think it’s very easy to look at a difficult case and find all the reasons why you can’t do something. It’s very easy to tell a client all the reasons they might lose. But clients don’t go to lawyers to hear those things, they want to find a solution and a way through. I never saw this as impossible. In this case, there was clear evidence that bribes had been paid and that a massive fraud had been practised on the client.

How did it feel to win the award for commercial litigation team of the year for this case?

We are very honoured to receive this award, for Mishcon as a firm and as a legal team, but I also want to give credit to the counsel team. Mark Howard KC, in particular, did a stellar job. He led the advocacy at trial, supported by a very able team. I don’t think any other advocate could have done the job he did – it was a masterclass in cross examination, which contributed to the end result massively.

I think it’s a credit to the English justice system that the right result was arrived at. A lot of people deserve credit for this: the team of lawyers who fought very hard and found a way through; but also the English judges who made the right calls. There was a fair process throughout, everyone got a fair hearing, and at the end of it, the right result was arrived at.

What did you – and what can we – take away from this case?

The Nigerian government, through successive administrations, was determined to fight. They really put their support behind the legal process and stayed the course until the very end.

They were determined to set a precedent for other fraudsters. The case will benefit generations to come, not only for Africa’s largest economy, but a number of other developing countries who followed the case to see what would happen. It makes it worthwhile when our work has a real-world impact.

isabel.caine@legal500.com

Legal Business

Political persuasions – what City partners are hoping for from the next Government

Posted on | , and
Comment Allen & OveryHerbert Smith FreehillsLatham & WatkinsMishcon de ReyaQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & SullivanVinson & Elkins

On the eve of a general election that looks set to promise a wipeout for the Conservative Party and the first Labour government in 14 years, LB checked in with a range of City partners across a variety of practice area to gauge the temperature of the UK legal industry, find out what they think will change, what won’t, and what to watch out for.

Things can only get better?

‘As of now, the polls suggest that if Labour achieve the same majority as Tony Blair did in 1997, it would be a good result for the Conservatives.’ This from Paul Butcher, director of public policy at Herbert Smith Freehills in London, sums up prevailing sentiment among not just the legal community but the wider media.

Indeed, the BBC’s poll tracker shows Labour poised to secure 40% of votes cast, with the Conservatives languishing at 20% – a stunning reversal in fortunes for the two parties after the Conservatives roared to victory in 2019 with 43.6% of the vote to Labour’s 32.1% and a majority of 80 seats. Now, The Economist predicts that Labour will emerge with 434 seats – more even than it won in 1997.

Polls can of course be wrong. But things do not look good for the Conservative Party – and not a single partner interviewed for this feature expressed any scepticism about a Labour victory.

‘Like everybody else, we’re expecting a Labour government’, says Quinn Emanuel London co-managing partner Ted Greeno (pictured).

Given the near unanimous expectation of a Labour victory, it is encouraging that the market view on the party is broadly positive – if not wildly enthusiastic. ‘I view this election as relatively benign, especially from the perspectives of the financial services and legal sectors’, says Latham & Watkins corporate and capital markets partner Mark Austin. ‘Unlike the last election, we now have two relatively centrist main party leaders and parties.’

Views in the finance community are similar, says McDermott London managing partner Aymen Mahmoud: ‘The usual measure of market reaction to a change in government is any movement in treasury or gilt markets. The fact that we haven’t seen one tells us that whichever party wins the election will be pro-business and, in the case of the Labour government, pro-worker.’

This is at least in part the result of a concerted effort by Labour. ‘Labour has been courting the business community over the last couple of years, really listening to what it needs’, notes Katy Colton (pictured, below), head of the politics and law group at Mishcon de Reya.

Down to brass tax

However, opinions on the Labour manifesto are not unanimously positive, with tax one particular area of concern – and not just the proposals for VAT on private school fees. ‘The Chancellor made a surprise announcement a while ago about cracking down on nondoms, but Labour has committed to going further, whilst at the same time pledging to tax carried interest to income tax instead of capital gains tax, which will have implications for the private equity industry’, says Colton.

These proposals raise the spectre of what Colton calls ‘an exodus of high-net-worth individuals’. Other partners, meanwhile, point to the risk that tax increases could discourage investment into the UK. This would be especially damaging as Labour has acknowledged that it will struggle to finance even its more modest proposals for change, and has placed economic growth at the core of its pitch to voters. The party has spoken too about closing loopholes in the tax regime, but partners are sceptical that there are enough loopholes to close to garner the kinds of revenues that Labour needs.

Still, Butcher points out that the tax issue is ‘heavily derisked for businesses compared to 2017 or 2019’. ‘They will find ways of raising taxes,’ he explains, ‘As under either party they will always find taxes or allowances not subject to promises. However, they are far more pro-business and pro-private sector investment. Their vision involves a more interventionist approach and more co-investing. Nevertheless, they embrace private investment, which will be reassuring.’

Employment is another area where the two parties diverge. Says Colton: ‘There are changes that are going to be interesting for employment lawyers, with Labour promising to increase day-one rights for workers and to remove some of the restrictions on unions, while the Conservatives are saying they’ll increase restrictions.’

Butcher agrees: ‘Concerns are much less acute than they were with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and 2019, but it will be a very different government to the current one. They will want to intervene much more in the economy. For example, in employment rights, they propose what they frame as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.’

However, he also makes sure to temper expectations: ‘Admittedly, it would also be the only upgrade in a generation.’

Powering up

Of course, much of what any incoming government does will be dictated not by its ideology or priorities but by its response to long-term challenges. The struggle between energy security and energy transition looms particularly large here.

‘Whatever the make-up of the new government, it seems inevitable that legislation will be enacted to bring forward regulatory change, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors’, says Vinson & Elkins London corporate head Ben Higson. ‘The new government will inevitably need to continue balancing the need for energy security and the drive to net zero: brought into sharp focus, I think, as real progress will need to be made during the five-year term on both fronts.’

Here, too, though, there is no sense that a Labour government will mean a radical break with the status quo. ‘Labour has a ‘moonshot’ proposal to decarbonise the electricity system by 2030,’ says HSF’s Butcher. ‘This could help focus efforts on issues like planning, as achieving this would be impossible without planning reform. This urgency also means they need to proceed with current plans rather than implementing new reforms. In energy, this is likely positive, as we have a good strategy for encouraging investment. Investors will likely welcome such stability over constant changes. Labour’s emphasis on quick implementation should reassure investors and could facilitate progress if executed well.’

Both Higson and Butcher point to nuclear power as one key area to watch for signals from the incoming government. Butcher expects that Labour ‘will be just as supportive as the current government. They recognise the reality that decarbonising by 2050 necessitates a significant amount of nuclear power; current technologies cannot achieve this alone.’ But he does not discount the possibility of further action: ‘The current government has established a solid foundation. Now, reforms to planning are needed to move forward, offering Labour a great prize if they can seize it. Currently, they appear as committed as the current government. However, I would urge them to go even bolder with the UK’s nuclear ambitions.’

Contentious matters

On the disputes front, Quinn’s Greeno is optimistic that a change in government will not present any unwelcome upheaval for litigators. ‘There’s no particular reason to think that anything’s going to change, at least in the short term’, says Greeno of the commercial litigation market. ‘Hopefully, the legislation on litigation funding pending when the election was called will be picked up and carried through by a Labour government. It’s pretty uncontroversial and in everyone’s interests to assist with access to justice.’

However, the dangers of an underfunded court system remain. Says Greeno: ‘We all know that the criminal justice system is crumbling due to lack of funding. One would have hoped, perhaps, that, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer would be alive to the risks of doing nothing to reverse that. None of the parties seem to think there are any votes in supporting a properly funded justice system, but as we see more years long delays and miscarriages of justice, I think this topic will gain more political traction.’

It is unclear what any government could do to relieve the stress on the system without an influx of cash. Increasing court fees would be ‘self-defeating’, argues Greeno, because ‘it would inevitably discourage some litigants from coming to London’, potentially sacrificing enormous funds. ‘Whatever the amount of revenue that would be raised by such a measure, a significantly greater amount would be lost if only one major case went elsewhere.’

The problem may be a hard one to solve. But that does not mean that the new government should shy away from it. For Greeno: ‘All governments are happy to talk about the rule of law, but they continue to take it for granted by underfunding the courts.’

Stable door

The feeling from the City’s corporate lawyers is that pre-election jitters from clients are, to date, relatively limited. The period since Rishi Sunak announced the election on 22 May has seen some businesses hold off on making any major moves until the new government comes in. But most define this as the usual waiting period that comes before any major election.

‘The timing is helpful’, says Austin, ‘because getting it done by mid-July means businesses and investors can confidently plan for the rest of this year and the first half of next year.’

Across the board, observers expect and hope for certainty. ‘It remains to be seen how the new government may impact the M&A markets’, says Higson. ‘But, at the least, a five-year term should provide some stability for businesses and investors going forward.’

A&O Shearman UK managing partner Denise Gibson (pictured) concurs: ‘The UK is in desperate need of substantial investment in this county’s physical, digital and social infrastructure, and its people. The country is also craving stability in decision-making.’

For Colton, ‘Having an election, regardless of the outcome, is a good thing for the business of law, because there’s been so much uncertainty, and an election will give us more certainty in terms of who the next government will be.’

Butcher is encouraged on this point: ‘Stability has become the prevailing trend. Politics seems to be returning to a more normal state post-Brexit and post-pandemic. We are moving to a situation resembling more typical political dynamics, and I hope this leads to improved legislation – but time will tell.’

Alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

Anna.huntley@legalbusiness.co.uk

Elisha.juttla@legalbusiness.co.uk

Legal Business

Private Client perspectives: Sandra Davis

Posted on |
Profile Mishcon de Reya

What made you decide to become a lawyer and why practise family law?

I’m naturally a problem solver, and I’ve always wanted to make a difference. Family law makes a real difference to people’s lives. We can help make a bad situation better, create calm in an emotional storm, and save children from the turmoil by early intervention. I’m motivated by providing solutions that are creative, rather than those that are formulaic.

Legal Business

‘Outcome still satisfactory’: revenue, profit and PEP drop at Macfarlanes as Mishcon continues growth

Posted on |
Financial Results 2021/22 MacfarlanesMishcon de Reya

Macfarlanes has today (24 July) posted results that show declines in turnover, profit, and PEP for the past financial year. Turnover dropped 2% to £296.6m, while operating profit fell 6% to £151.4m. The decline in PEP was steepest: a fall of 16% took it to £2.1m.

The results mean an end to a  12-year streak of growth that saw its PEP surge past its rivals, with last year’s £2.49m placing it behind just Slaughter and May and Stewarts in the list of firms with the fastest-growing PEP in our 2022 LB100.

‘The 2022/23 financial year proved a more challenging year for our firm due to difficult market conditions although the outcome was still satisfactory,’ said senior partner Sebastian Prichard Jones in a statement.

‘After the exceptional impact of the pandemic, which had a positive effect on our financial performance, in a number of respects this was a year of consolidation. This included an increase in our equity partnership by 10%, which had what we anticipate to be a short-term impact on our PEP figure. This is an investment we were pleased to make. After taking a pause for breath in 2022/23, we remain in a strong position and are confident we will move forward again this year.’

The increase in equity partner numbers offsets the drop in PEP somewhat. And the reference to a difficult 2022 after an exceptional 2021 is well taken: there are few firms who have made similar claims as they announce their latest sets of financial results, with Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, and Ashurst all recording dips in PEP. Macfarlanes is not the only firm to record a dip in turnover over the past financial year, with Hogan Lovells posting a 7% decline in February.

The picture painted by Mishcon de Reya was more positive. The firm posted financial results that saw total revenue increase by 10% to £255m. While slower than last year’s 23% increase, this continues a positive trend that has seen the firm continue to grow despite setbacks including a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) fine and a failed IPO.

Overall profit has increased  22% to £93m, though the firm notes that the increase in profit was a much more modest 6% if IPO costs were excluded from the previous year’s figures.

Mishcon reported overall profit as a lone metric for the first time this year, describing profit per equity partner (PEP) as ‘too narrow, short term and misleading as a metric for a business as diverse as the MDR Group, which now accommodates both a traditional law firm and many start-ups.’

Group chief financial officer Matt Hotson explained further: ‘Our goal is create long term value – for our clients, our people and the society in which we operate. PEP is not a metric which is helpful in this context nor is it useful for a business like ours with a diversified offering of legal and non-legal services.’

The completion of Mishcon’s merger with Taylor Vinters in January 2023 brought it to a total of more than 220 partners. The firm reported around 80 equity partners, which would place  PEP at £1.16m – up almost 11% on last year’s £1.05m, and above its previous high-water mark of £1.1m, set in 2017.

Mishcon showed another year of impressive growth in its consultancy and advisory work, reporting an 81% growth in non-legal revenue. The firm was keen to stress, though, that the overwhelming majority of its revenue still came from its core legal services. Performance across practice areas was ‘pretty even across the firm’, said managing partner James Libson. ‘Even though one may have expected real estate to slow down, it kept its momentum all the way through to year-end. Corporate suffered a little in Q4, but the rest were solid.

‘One sees dispute resolution do better, or at least act as a hedge, in recessionary times. But there’s been a real lag in that this time around, as so much protection has been put into the system. Still, we’re seeing an increase coming through, and we expect that to accelerate over the next year.’

The firm’s strategic focus will be on bedding in its merger. ‘The innovation and early-stage market in Oxford and Cambridge is very important to us’, said Libson. The firm will also continue to extend its Asian offering, including building out its Singapore office and continuing its association with Karas So  in Hong Kong. ‘At the moment it’s a litigation offering,’ said Libson. We’ve brought in three private client partners, one in family and two in tax. Our aim is for that office to reflect the balance of our overall Asia offering, which will focus on litigation, private client, and corporate restructuring for family-owned businesses.’

More broadly, Mishcon also intends to explore options to raise capital. ‘The IPO market remains pretty closed’, explained Hotson. ‘It’s not something we’re actively looking at right now. But we have a strategic view to increasing our access to capital. We would potentially do more deals like we did with Taylor Vinters, which sometimes need more capital to make work. And we need to invest in other things like tech as well.’

Hotson also pointed to the increased availability of litigation funding as an area of opportunity for the firm: ‘We have a medium-term need for increased capital. How we resolve that need is something we debate from time to time, though there’s not  a huge amount of urgency. It’s not constraining our ability to grow now.

‘We explored the IPO as an enabling strategy to allow us to deliver growth. The listed law firm market is a very limited market. Even the private equity law firm market is not very mature. But we think we’ll see more firms take capital in, because there are things they can do with that capital. We may well be one of those.’

alexander.ryan@legalbusiness.co.uk

Legal Business

LB100: Mishcon profile – All that glisters is not Gold

Posted on | and
Financial Results 2021/22 Mishcon de Reya

When Legal Business last took a deep dive into the firm’s then ‘unrivalled financial success’ in 2016, the entrepreneurial reputation of the Mishcon brand took centre stage. For this, the then managing partner Kevin Gold (pictured) and marketing maverick Elliot Moss were largely credited. ‘Mishcon has continually broken from the pack, often in a colourful style that made legal glamour brands like Olswang look about as edgy as Linklaters,’ LB proclaimed in the feature.

At the time, the firm had broken from the pack to pursue high-profile litigation over transactional work. With an enviable list of instructions that included the divorce and estate of Princess Diana, Mishcon was then representing a group claim spearheaded by businesswoman Gina Miller challenging the triggering of the article 50 notice to leave the EU. The firm regularly attracted plaudits for taking on David versus Goliath cases and creating an innovative, collaborative environment. Nearly six years ago, Gold mused: ‘Mishcon is like being at uni but you get paid for it.’

Legal Business

Ex-Mishcon partner hit with £17,500 SRA fine over conduct breach

Posted on |
Legal regulation Mishcon de Reya

A former Mishcon de Reya partner has accepted a £17,500 penalty for his conduct which contributed to the record £232,500 SRA settlement agreed with the firm in January.

In an agreement published yesterday (7 March), Michael Nouril admitted to serious breaches of money laundering regulations relating to work for two individual clients, and corporate vehicles connected with the same two individual clients. In addition to the settlement, he will also pay  £3,500 in costs.

The breaches admitted to by Nouril include a failure to obtain a full set of due diligence documents as well as permitting transactions in and out of the firm’s client account that did not relate to an underlying legal transaction.

As with the penalty accepted by Mishcon earlier this year, this fine was calculated based on the fining powers of the SRA for alternative business structures, which far outreach their powers to impose financial penalties on traditional law firms. If Mishcon was not an ABS, the SRA’s fine would have been capped at £2,000 with referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal needed for penalties exceeding that amount. This is despite SRA’s attempts to increase the limits, including its renewed plea in a consultation launched in November 2021 which proposed an increase of the maximum fine it can issue solicitors and law firms to £25,000.

It could have been worse for Nouril, as the final fine was reduced by 30% from £25,000. The discount was made on account of mitigating factors, including his cooperation with the SRA investigation and a commitment to reduce the risk of repetition of similar issues.

The corporate lawyer, who has not been practising since he left Mishcon in April 2020, has since undertaken comprehensive training with respect to anti-money laundering and the SRA Accounts Rules.

For Mishcon, the continuation of this matter comes amid preparation for its IPO, which included the appointment of five new directors to serve on its plc board last month.

megan.mayers@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Mishcon hit with record £232,500 SRA penalty over money laundering mishaps

Posted on |
Legal regulation Mishcon de Reya

In an unflattering revelation ahead of its planned IPO, Mishcon de Reya yesterday (5 January) received the highest-ever financial penalty issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) of £232,500 for a string of failures related to money laundering rules.

The firm, which has also been issued with a £50,000 costs order, admitted to failing to provide adequate due diligence on four client matters. It also accepted it had misplaced the hard copy evidence of the due diligence it carried out on those matters.

The financial ramifications could have been worse for Mishcon – the SRA calculated the penalty as 0.25% of the firm’s £155m turnover (£387,500), but this was reduced by 40% due to mitigating factors, such as the firm’s assistance with the investigation.

According to the judgment, between September 2015 and April 2017, the firm carried out work for two individual clients, and for corporate vehicles connected with those same two individual clients. This work related to a non-SRA regulatory investigation, asset planning for one of the individuals, and the initial stages of the proposed acquisition of two separate entities.

Mishcon believed it had completed due diligence for the clients, but no hard copy evidence could be provided, nor any electronic records.

The SRA also said that both proposed acquisitions presented a ‘higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing’ under the relevant money laundering legislation in force at the time, because they involved companies in high-risk jurisdictions. This therefore required ‘enhanced customer due diligence’, which was not provided.

Mishcon commissioned an external investigation into the incidents, which found that the partner associated with these client relationships had not received mandatory training as required by anti-money laundering regulations.

In addition, the SRA found that between September 2017 and October 2018, the firm acted in three other property transactions where due diligence was not correctly completed, with Mishcon again failing to retain suitable evidence of this due diligence.

A Mishcon spokesperson said: ‘We are pleased to have come to a settlement with the SRA relating to two separate and historic investigations in relation to which we have made appropriate admissions. Mitigating factors such as our cooperation with the SRA throughout the investigations and the corrective action we have taken since to prevent a recurrence have been recognised by the SRA in reaching this outcome.’

It compounds a difficult year for Mishcon as it gears up for its public listing, with a number of partners leaving the firm during 2021 . This is also not its first regulatory misstep in recent months – in October the firm was fined £25,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for failing to prevent payments being made into and from the client account, with the monies being paid to third parties involved in football transfers.

While there have been larger fines that have resulted from full investigations passed on to the SDT, with Locke Lord’s £500,000 sanction in 2017 being the record, Mishcon’s penalty of £232,500 is the largest to be agreed directly with the regulator. The previous record was the £124,436 penalty the SRA agreed with Findmyclaims.com in March 2019, which related to misleading customers via the firm’s marketing materials.

Tom.baker@legalease.co.uk

Legal Business

Legal Business Awards 2020 – Lawyer of the Year

Posted on |
Legal Business Awards 2020 Mishcon de ReyaStephenson Harwood

After reviewing the evidence for dozens of candidates, we are delighted to reveal our Lawyer of the Year for the 2020 Legal Business Awards.

This award acknowledges a truly exceptional individual contribution to the profession during 2019 by private practitioners, in-house counsel and barristers. Judges were looking for evidence of exceptional performance in any area that makes the chosen lawyer stand out from their peers.

 

 

Sponsored by

Signium

Winner – James Libson, Mishcon de Reya

While managing partner James Libson has played a central role in the dynamic growth of Mishcon de Reya over the last 20 years, his recent work in using the law to counter discrimination in the Labour Party and his role in the Miller prorogation case gave him the edge in this category.

2019 saw him defend high-profile politicians, including Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger who were the victims of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, as well as representing the Jewish Labour Movement in its referral of the Labour Party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission – a strategy Libson conceived and executed.

Libson has acted for whistleblowers in the health, financial services and political sectors since the legislation was introduced in 1998 and also defended several of the whistleblowers under attack from the Labour Party.

He also led the solicitor team that represented Gina Miller in her case against of the government’s decision to trigger Article 50 without a vote of parliament and more recently was instructed by Miller again in relation to the proroguing of parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to bypass a vote in parliament to achieve a no-deal Brexit.

In this second historic victory, the Supreme Court held: ‘The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.’

Mishcon said Libson’s work was characterised by acting almost always on behalf of clients at the epicentre of hostile, extreme (and often violent in its discourse) attention. Outside the law, Libson is noted for being extremely active in the charity sector, in particular in causes addressing the needs of refugees.

Highly Commended – Tammy Samuel, Stephenson Harwood

Head of the rail sector group and recently promoted to global head of Stephenson Harwood’s finance practice, Samuel combines a market-leading practice for clients such as TfL and the Department of Transport with her role as mentor and spokesperson for gender and sexual orientation diversity within the profession.

As well as balancing her impressive career, Samuel has four children, is an ex-England and Saracens rugby player and coaches and sponsors a girls’ rugby team. Her contribution to promoting women in rail and law, as well as her commitment to wider diversity, is outstanding.

Samuel regularly represents Stephenson Harwood at Aspiring Solicitors events that seek to improve access to the profession and in March 2019 she helped launch the firm’s LGBT+ network by interviewing rugby player and activist Gareth Thomas at a launch event.

Recent mandates include advising TfL on Crossrail and the Department of Transport on a variety of matters. She has also given evidence to the UK House of Commons Transport Select Committee as part of its inquiry into rail infrastructure investment.

Other nominations

Emilie Cole, Irwin Mitchell

Cole represented district judge Claire Gilham in a landmark victory in the Supreme Court, convincing the court that she should be granted the same legal protections as other whistleblowers under her European human rights and securing protection for all UK statutory office holders.

Andrew Lidbetter, Herbert Smith Freehills

Leading HSF’s London public law practice, Lidbetter had an outstanding 2019 during which he handled judicial review, public inquiry and other regulatory work across a range of commercial sectors and pro bono for NGOs. This has resulted in him having three successful judgments intervening for clients at Supreme Court level, including in the parliament prorogation case in September.

Joanne Wicks QC, Wilberforce Chambers

A leading light at the property Bar, in the past 12 months Wicks QC has appeared in the Supreme Court twice (in S Franses v The Cavendish Hotel and Dr Julia Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent) and the Court of Appeal (in Churston Golf Club v Haddock). Furthermore, she appeared in Canary Wharf v European Medicines Agency, one of the most high-profile property cases of 2019.

Legal Business

HSF ensures victory for regulator in major Covid-19 insurance test case 

Posted on |
Dispute resolution Herbert Smith FreehillsMishcon de Reya

Herbert Smith Freehills  (HSF) has ensured victory for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in a landmark test case intended to provide clarity on whether companies have valid business disruption insurance claims as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The High Court judgment handed down this morning (15 September) by Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Butcher will be a heavy blow to insurers, with tens of thousands of businesses now potentially in line for payouts on their business interruption policies. 

HSF fielded global insurance and disputes head Paul Lewis on the matter, while Mishcon de Reya teamed up with litigation funder Harbour to represent the Hiscox Action Group. Allen & Overy, Clyde & Co, DAC Beachcroft and DWF were among those to advise the eight defendant insurance companies on the case. Meanwhile, HSF instructed Colin Edelman QC of Devereux Chambers, as well as Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC and Richard Coleman QC of Fountain Court Chambers.

While the decision provides some needed clarity, the insurance industry is expected to appeal the decision, meaning business owners will still face uncertainty. The outcome could affect up to 370,000 business interruption policies across a number of sectors.

Commenting on the decision, Christopher Woolard, interim chief executive of the FCA, said: ‘We brought the test case in order to resolve the lack of clarity and certainty that existed for many policyholders making business interruption claims and the wider market.  We are pleased that the court has substantially found in favour of the arguments we presented on the majority of the key issues. Today’s judgment is a significant step in resolving the uncertainty being faced by policyholders. We are grateful to the court for delivering the judgment quickly and the speed with which it was reached reflects well on all parties.’

HSF’s Lewis commented: ‘This is a really significant judgment. It brings guidance to how business interruption insurance wordings should operate in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has had such a devastating effect on businesses across the country. The decision should bring welcome news to a significant number of policyholders who will need to read the judgment carefully and see how the principles laid down by the court apply to their particular policy wording. The speed with which the proceedings were brought is testament to the hard work of the FCA, Herbert Smith Freehills and counsel teams to bring this urgent case to the courts.’

thomas.alan@legalbusiness.co.uk

Legal Business

‘Continue to be bold’: resilient Mishcon ups revenue again as PEP rediscovers momentum

Posted on |
Financial results 2019/20 Mishcon de Reya

Mishcon de Reya has become the latest firm in the LB100 to resist the economic onslaught of Covid-19 in its financial year end, the firm’s figures show, with revenues up for another year while profits regained momentum.

Turnover increased a healthy 6% from £177.8m to £188.3m over 2019/20, while profit per equity partner was up 5% to £1,050,000. Though the revenue growth is a comparative slowdown on last year’s pacier 10% rise, the rise in profits will be welcome after falling flat in 2018/19, and dropping 9% the year prior to that.

Commenting on the results, managing partner James Libson said: ‘It is heartening to see continued growth at the firm, which is underpinned by a strong performance across our entire offering – especially our dispute resolution and private teams, as well as an increasing number of institutional clients using our services.

‘The resilience of our transactional business – even as Covid bit – is a testament to the quality of our real estate and corporate offerings while continuing impressive growth in our litigation work over the past year has been characterised by large, high profile and often international cases. Our private team has seen great success across the board and particularly in ongoing areas of investment such as tax and wealth structuring (and the odd constitutional challenge).’

2020 has proved a tumultuous year particularly for Mishcon so far. In January, the firm announced it had withdrawn from Manhattan after ten years as the firm’s three remaining partners jumped ship to the New York office of King & Wood Mallesons. Later in February, the firm lost a pair of City disputes partners with Mohammed Khamisa QC and Masoud Zabeti departing for the London office of Greenberg Traurig.

However, in April the firm announced that highly-rated arbitrator Louis Flannery QC was joining the firm from Stephenson Harwood, where he headed up international arbitration for more than ten years. Then in May, Mishcon opened shop in Singapore, with an initial focus on delivering legal services to high net worth families across South East Asia.

Though Mishcon’s latest financials are robust, 2020/21 is when the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown will be felt in earnest. Regarding the tougher year ahead, Libson concluded: ‘We know that there will be choppy waters ahead as the ongoing impact of the pandemic is felt by businesses and families alike. However, we remain confident in our strategy and our 10-Year Vision, and will continue to be bold in pursuing our ambitious plans.’

thomas.alan@legalbusiness.co.uk