Clifford Chance receives £50,000 SDT fine for 'unlawful' conditional fee agreement in Excalibur case
CC partner Alex Panayides also fined £50,000 for role in controversial case
December 01, 2017 at 09:43 AM
4 minute read
Clifford Chance (CC) has been fined £50,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for its role in the controversial Excalibur case.
CC admitted that it "conducted litigation in the High Court under a conditional fee agreement… which was unlawful and unenforceable".
The firm also admitted that it had "produced to a potential litigation funder a document which contained advice from the firm to a client, without disclosing that the first draft of the document had been drafted by one of the owners of the client".
The third charge to which CC admitted was that it had "made payments from sums held on behalf of litigation funders other than in accordance with the funding agreements pursuant to which such sums were held".
Litigation partner Alex Panayides has also been fined £50,000 for his role in the case, after admitting to the same three charges as his firm. Despite the ruling, he will remain at CC as an equity partner, the firm confirmed.
In a statement, CC said: "We take our obligations to our clients and the profession extremely seriously and are committed to upholding the highest standards at all times. We accept the SDT's findings that some aspects of our conduct in this matter did not meet these high standards.
"The issues referred to the SDT were not prompted by any complaint but had all been identified and self-reported to the SRA by the firm following our own prompt and thorough internal review.
"We are pleased to note that the honesty and integrity of all parties is nowhere in question and that none of the original judicial criticism, which prompted the SRA investigation, is reflected in the SRA's findings. No adverse findings were made as to potential or actual conflicts of interest, and the handling of the litigation itself was not the subject of any criticism of any kind.
"While it was found that our systems and controls were appropriate, as a firm we are committed to further developing and promoting market-shaping practices in relation to ethics and professional standards."
The prosecution decision in both cases was reached yesterday (30 November).
The long-running Excalibur case centred around a $1.6bn claim brought by Excalibur Ventures, an aspiring oil exploration firm, against two US oil companies, backed by a group of litigation funders.
Excalibur, which claimed that the defendants cheated it out of an exploration deal in Iraq, was represented by Panayides, who was working on a partial contingency fee.
Last year, the Court of Appeal upheld a 2013 High Court ruling which found that the litigation funders were liable for the defence costs of the two defendants. CC was criticised by the Court of Appeal for its role advising Excalibur, after it emerged that there were family ties between Panayides and one of the funders.
The Court of Appeal's ruling also revealed that CC was working for a contingency fee in which it could have recovered 140% of its usual fees, plus a discretionary success fee. This was the first time the magic circle firm had entered into a contingency arrangement, the court said.
In the 2016 ruling, Lord Justice Tomlinson stated: "CC themselves had from the outset an acute conflict of interest, the extent of which worsened as their own investment in the case increased over time. It should have been obvious to any astute businessman."
The SRA launched a formal investigation into CC over its role in the case in July, with the magic circle firm turning to Clyde & Co for advice.
CC's penalty is still nowhere close to Locke Lord's £500,000 fine – the largest ever made by the SDT against a single firm in England and Wales. The firm received the record fine after admitting that it failed to prevent a former London partner from using a client account for "dubious" financial arrangements.
In July, White & Case was hit with a £250,000 fine by the regulator. The firm had admitted to conflict and confidentiality failures relating to a 2014 High Court case that saw White & Case blocked from acting for Ukrainian client Victor Pinchuk.
In April, three Clyde & Co partners were each fined £10,000 by the SDT for breaching money laundering rules.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAustralian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readSingapore Oil Tycoon Appeals 17.5 Year Prison Sentence In Fraudulent Trading Case
Samsung Flooded with Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in US Court
DLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 2Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 3Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 4Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 5'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250