'It's a Warning to Everyone' – City Partners Share Shock Over Trainee Signature Forgery
The ex-trainee was fined and can no longer work as a solicitor after tracing a client's signature on a document.
June 07, 2019 at 09:04 AM
4 minute read
"She's overstepped the mark badly," was one partner's response to the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) decision that a former trainee at Ropes & Gray's London office traced a client's signature.
In the wake of the news, which was published on the SRA's website yesterday, partners across the City have expressed shock.
"It's a warning to everyone," said the same partner, who works in the London office of a global firm. "The reason people don't do this is because if you do it once, you lose your career. I've never even heard it suggested. It's one step away from taking client money. It's that kind of level. It's a once-in-20-year event."
However, while partners were quick to say that the SRA's decision to bar the trainee and fine her £2,000 was fair and that this was a particularly reprehensible act on her part, some pointed out that the level of competition between trainees and junior lawyers and the desire to impress senior colleagues and clients can tempt some to do things they otherwise wouldn't.
New guidance was issued in 2009 about the virtual signing of documents, following the Mercury case in which a judge decided that adding a signature page to a deed or using a signature page from a previous draft of the deed in a final draft would not be valid.
That guidance paved the way for lawyers to assess the boundaries of what is and what is not allowed when it comes to getting clients to provide their signatures at short notice.
Partners pointed out, however, that trainees would likely be unfamiliar with any such guidance and it would be up to firms to inform trainees of the mistakes that can be made in this area.
One Magic Circle partner said that in the run-up to a deal being closed, the team can get manic and key documents can get lost, as was the case for the trainee in question.
"The fact is you'll often have people who have not slept recently, some of the documents may not be in the agreed form yet, and you've got junior team members who are under pressure and who want to impress their superiors and the clients, so you do have this environment where people do something stupid like this."
The partner at the global firm added: "You can always fix these things. You can say, 'look, I've misplaced this'; it might create a small amount of aggro but normally people are pretty good about this. People say: 'Look, I'm not available right now, but I'll do it when I get back to the office.'"
One partner at a U.S. firm in the City said this would be a difficult thing for an inexperienced person to own up to, given their desire to impress superiors who hold their career as a lawyer in their hands.
"It's quite sad in a way. There is a lot of pride involved in being a lawyer, especially at a young age where there's a lot of pressure to get qualification. It's sad to see trainees to do something like this. I don't know whether there should have been better supervision.
"We absolutely all make mistakes – we just all need to be upfront about this stuff. Maybe this will open up more discussions about this kind of thing at an early stage with trainees," the partner added.
A Ropes & Gray spokesperson said: "This is an SRA matter and, as such, it would be inappropriate for us to comment. We can confirm that [the trainee] no longer works at the firm."
Legal Week was unable to reach the trainee for comment.
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
- 1How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 2DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 3GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 4Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 5Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
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