'Bill Voge could have stopped this becoming public in England' – UK privacy lawyers weigh in on Latham scandal
UK privacy experts suggest Voge affair would not meet public interest test
March 22, 2018 at 09:57 AM
4 minute read
US law firm leader finds himself at the centre of a Christian 'sexting' storm? It was inevitable that the press would pounce on the undoing of Latham & Watkins' chairman Bill Voge. But London privacy lawyers suggest the UK media may not have been able to hit publish on the story if it had happened here, rather than the US.
For while the incident has caused a scandal, and his personal behaviour is morally questionable, Voge does not appear to have committed any crime.
From what is known so far, it appears that he merely embarked on a messy – and inappropriate – personal relationship with a woman he never met, had no connection to Latham, and who he contacted through his membership of men's Christian support group the New Canaan Society.
As such, according to privacy lawyers, under UK law he could have sought an injunction to prevent the press from publishing the information.
Charles Russell Speechlys litigation consultant and privacy specialist Duncan Lamont says: "UK law says private sexual activity – no matter if unusual – should be private, unless you are something like a public figure unexpectedly dressed as a Nazi screaming 'Heil Hitler'.
"Bill Voge could have stopped this becoming public in England, because it seems there is not sufficient public interest. If he heard that she was going to go public in the UK with details of the communications between them – sex texts as an example – he could seek an injunction. People have the right to have private relationships and the right to make mistakes without public exposure."
Nigel Tait, managing partner and defamation and media law head at Carter-Ruck, agrees, adding: "We have a law of privacy and generally there is no public interest in the publication of a person's sex life, so it is likely that the law would tend to protect such disclosure to, or by the press."
The same may not be true in the US though, where Law360, which uncovered the scandal, wrote in detail about the affair.
Law360′s report says that Voge contacted the woman to help her engage in "Christian reconciliation" with another member of the New Canaan Society, with communications then becoming sexual, although they never met in person. It states that although the relationship was initially consensual, the woman felt Voge "took things too far" by trying to get her to come to his hotel room.
Once the relationship faltered, Law360 said the woman contacted Voge's lawyer, partners at Latham, lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis and Voge's family. In a conversation with Law360, Voge reportedly described her as a "cyberstalker".
Regardless of what UK law allows, others argue that it would have been riskier for Latham or Voge to go down the injunction route, as it could have resulted in more reputational damage in the long term.
Addleshaw Goddard litigation partner David Engel says: "If the outcome is uncertain, applying for a privacy injunction is high risk from a reputational perspective because, if it fails, it then becomes a story about a cover-up or an attempt to gag the press."
In the case of Latham, where Voge made a series of voluntary disclosures to the firm's executive committee before the story broke, partners suggest the firm has minimised reputational damage by allowing Voge to take the hit personally.
One former FTSE 100 GC comments: "If we were this week or next looking to appoint a firm for a big refinancing pitch or some big high-profile piece of work, would we want Latham? Probably not. But today's news is fish-and-chip paper tomorrow, and it would likely not make too much of a difference down the line."
One UK managing partner adds: "This is one of the world's largest law firms by revenue, and that's newsworthy. It will always draw headlines across the sector. They've done what they can and should do, and they've sent a very clear message that they have a zero tolerance policy."
For Voge though, the impact of the scandal is unlikely to be so shortlived and he looks set to pay a high personal and professional price for his "lapse in judgement".
It is behaviour that is at odds with what many know of him. One former Latham partner recalls Voge as a "no mistakes" guy. "The fact that this has happened to him came as a surprise. I didn't see him as an impulsive guy – he was very self-controlled," he concludes.
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 AllBCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
To Thrive in Central and Eastern Europe, Law Firms Need to 'Know the Rules of the Game'
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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