Delightful swearing at staff by City law partners

Didn't find your answer?

Replies (27)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Mr_awol
08th Oct 2019 17:06

Awww diddums. Someone give the poor little lamb a cuddle...………….

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
08th Oct 2019 17:18

Well OK, but how about the recently publicised behaviour in the link below by a City law partner to one of his female junior staff, in particular page 7 allegations.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d6f9ce440f0b609275263d2/...

That didn't seem to trouble the SRA either, yet they are currently laying into a Freshfields partner over arguably much less serious conduct towards an employee you may have read.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By johnhemming
09th Oct 2019 07:07

The Employment Tribunal wrote:

483. The claimant is someone who on her own admission tells lies. It was therefore difficult to know when she was telling the truth.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Mr_awol
09th Oct 2019 14:47

Justin Bryant wrote:

Well OK, but how about the recently publicised behaviour in the link below by a City law partner to one of his female junior staff, in particular page 7 allegations.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d6f9ce440f0b609275263d2/...

That didn't seem to trouble the SRA either, yet they are currently laying into a Freshfields partner over arguably much less serious conduct towards an employee you may have read.

I've read a fair bit of the case you linked about behaviour to a female employee and whilst id agree that, if true (and there have to be serious questions about the honesty of the claimant) the allegations are very serious indeed and wouldn't invoke such a casual response as I made to the first case.

Unfortunately there appear to be so many lies, contradictory statements, and dubious motives to the claimant's case that whilst there probably wass inappropriate behaviour on both sides, it would be difficult to work out who was actually in the wrong.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Oct 2019 06:15

Mr_awol wrote:

Awww diddums. Someone give the poor little lamb a cuddle...………….

I guess we know where you stand on the staff wellbeing and mental health debate. Perhaps you might want to think a little more about your own(*), as that sounds like quite a chip on your shoulder.

(*) Staff, obvs, but I meant wellbeing and mental health.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Mr_awol
09th Oct 2019 08:26

You have no idea where I stand on that debate by the looks of it - and thankfully my mental health is sufficiently robust to withstand your petty insults.

Supporting staff through genuine times of need is important - but mollycoddling them is something else. Compassionate leave for dead hamsters isn’t going to become a policy for us anytime soon.

If the employee in the original case can’t go to his employers and admit skipping an exam, how is he going to react if he makes a mistake which could cost a client tens (or hundreds!) of thousands of pounds? Owning up quickly might enable the situation to be rectified. Covering it up might make it substantially worse.

If someone came to us and said they failed an exam then we might not pay for the resit. If they said they’d had personal issues and didn’t attempt the paper then they’d be supported (yes there may be a break in their study to take pressure off and we might insist they funded the second attempt). If they lied about passing, mentioned it on their staff review (or worse, accepted a pay rise on the back of it) they’d probably be out.

It isn’t about the exam - it’s about trust.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Oct 2019 08:43

Thank you for a much fuller response with meaningful content.

It's a shame you chose not to see why my response to your first empty comment was anything but petty insults. Justin's lead-in (the only context for your comment when you made it) was about it being healthy and natural to swear at (junior) staff.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Mr_awol
09th Oct 2019 11:52

Actually Justin's lead-in included a link to the case, which I'd read, and which became my grounds for opinion.

Is it healthy and natural to swear at staff? Depends on context. I wouldn't scream "where is my fudging coffee" at a nineteen year old admin girl who had forgotten to bring me a drink. I also wouldn't swear generally at staff like some angry bear stomping round the office looking for people to abuse. If one of my managers sat on a Tax Return for three months and then sent the client a last minute email saying 'you need to pay £150k plus POAs by end of play tomorrow' then I am likely to question what the duck they would do in the client's shoes and why they didn't pull their finger out of their harris and give the client a bit more notice.

Similarly, if a job has a deadline to be out the door on Friday and they bring me the file an hour before the post goes, having fannied about with admin tasks all day Thursday, then a full and frank exchange of views is on the cards. We certainly wont all be sitting in a circle holding hands.

Surround yourself with winners and life becomes easier for everyone. Too many employees like the one in the first case and the whole thing falls apart.

Thanks (1)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
08th Oct 2019 17:07

Lego lawyer- you can get Batman, Buzz Lightyear, Darth et al in various sets, but I have never seen a lawyer in one- presume will be able to spot as he/she will be the Lego figure arguing with all the other figures.

Which reminds me, I have the Lego train motor/remote set to install in a Lego train (gift from my kids at Christmas) if I get it working and can find a Lego lawyer I can tie them to the track and then let..............

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Oct 2019 10:04

DJKL wrote:

I have never seen a lawyer in one.

Judge Dredd is the closest I can think of.

Maybe Tom Cruise - he's played a lawyer enough times.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
09th Oct 2019 11:27

Obviously the new bestseller will be the Lego set for the film "The Accountant" will full weapons pack. Lego seem to be less keen on weapons though the pirate, western sets and of course Stars Wars got a fair few (most of which, apart from the pirate ship cannons/big stuff, got lost down between the floorboards)

It we do get a legal set we can also have small children recreating ,

"Being honest doesn't have much to do with being a lawyer, Grandpa."

or

"You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!"

Thanks (1)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
08th Oct 2019 19:45

(a) What is the question?

(b) What is this doing on a forum for accountancy and tax professionals?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By User deleted
08th Oct 2019 20:55

I quite like the Lego stuff. Not sure what Justy is on about though. Nothing new

Thanks (2)
Replying to User deleted:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
09th Oct 2019 09:56

How can one not like the Lego stuff, Lego is wonderful and it lasts (there is a box of it at my Mother in Law's house that must be well over fifty years old now and it all still clicks together)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Oct 2019 06:18

The issues raised are not profession-specific. Why should we not discuss them in this forum?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By User deleted
09th Oct 2019 09:17

What is there to discuss? It is an open and shut case. Professional lies. Quite rightly gets booted out. He tried to snowflake it by talking about his feelings and tried to get his partner into trouble - but, luckily, the SRA canned him anyway.

Thanks (1)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Oct 2019 09:42

AnnAccountant wrote:

What is there to discuss?

Did you miss the bit that Justy was on about?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Oct 2019 10:14

TD, they are clearly all fools & naves (especially you know who). Only you and I know anything here (in case you didn't know that).

Just go to this website and look at the most popular stories to see this is all very much topical stuff.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news

This bloke seems to agree with me at least: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/must-solicitors-be-paragons...

For the thickos above (or perhaps I should say thicko), this is obviously a question about how you should treat your staff and to what extent bad treatment should be a matter for regulators.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
09th Oct 2019 10:51

I must be extremely thick, then, because I still can't see the 'obvious' question.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By mrme89
09th Oct 2019 11:15

Justin has clearly raised it as a discussion point.

I actually found it an interesting read and feel the topic has a place on this forum.

If you don't agree, then don't comment. It just a distraction from the adults trying to have a conversation.

Thanks (1)
Replying to mrme89:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
09th Oct 2019 11:46

Whatever

What does it say in the box at the top of this page?

"Got a question you'd like answered?
Ask your question now"

I appreciate that there are some who behave like adults on this forum. Justin ain't one of them.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By mrme89
09th Oct 2019 11:54

I have a question.

Why are you being so pathetic?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
09th Oct 2019 11:04

Point taken about it not being profession-specific. But I still can't see the question. Topics such as this would, in my view, be better dealt with in a discussion forum, leaving Any Answers for accounts and tax issues. In fact, given that Justin hardly ever asks a question I would say that it would be far more appropriate for him to confine himself to a blog where he can rant and rave to his heart's content and the few that might be interested can join in. Thus leaving this forum to discuss matters that are actually relevant to the majority of members (and keep it free from, or at least reduce the incidence of, petty playground insults).

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
09th Oct 2019 11:18

Given that the disclosure to the SRA was voluntary, I feel that being struck off is incredibly harsh.

The SRA, like other professional bodies, are inconsistent in their 'sentencing'.

A lot of professional firms have a toxic working environment, and I do believe it probably had some part to play in his decision making process. To what extent, I don't know.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mrme89:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
09th Oct 2019 11:39

But it does beg the interesting question, should certain professions carry a higher standard of professional behaviour within particular facets of their lives, depending upon which profession?

So are solicitors , as I believe are Officers of the Court, held to a particular higher standard re truthfulness?

Same applies to accountants re say financial probity.

Clergy maybe re the morals of their relationships.

I do believe that if one is to be treated with the respect that comes from a profession then the standards applying to one's behaviour ought to be higher than that of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
By mrme89
09th Oct 2019 11:51

I think that regardless of your profession, you should have honesty and integrity. I don't think one profession should trump another on the level of honesty and integrity.

That said, I think the public's perception of the level of honesty and integrity varies depending on the profession.

The problem with being an accountant compared with a solicitor is that there is no legal barrier to becoming an accountant. And because of that, we are likely to have more within our industry that don't hold any professional standards because they have nobody to answer to.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mrme89:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
09th Oct 2019 12:22

C'est Moi- or was anyway.

The qualification/professional body part is re enforcement, but stripping back the enforcement bit, and considering it more as a Moral Philosophy topic, ought a professional (irrespective of qualification) who holds him/her self out as a professional, behave to a higher standard than the norm within certain facets/aspects of their life?

Now everyone has different views on this sort of thing, my late father would for example have taken the view that a professional ought never to withdraw their labour (strike) and the honourable thing do do re an intractable pay dispute would be to change employer. He considered the public perception of say teachers was devalued by their withdrawal of out of hours "voluntary" activities , that this behavior was not professional (though I personally am not that sure what else they might have done to make their point where the market for their services is in essence a near monopoly-apart from private schools)

One can not really have truthful and more truthful but I can see that possibly the sanction for not being truthful ought to be harsher for certain professions in positions of trust.

Thanks (0)