Pump Court Chambers: No justification for anonymity any longer, judge rules
A former credit control manager at a major London chambers has admitted to stealing £2.75m from the set over the past five years, it emerged in the High Court yesterday.
Charles Morrison, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, decided that there was no longer justification to hold the proceedings brought by Pump Court Chambers against Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield) in private.
Pump Court has 135 members, with chambers in London, Winchester, Swindon and Canterbury.
The claim is brought by Pump Court Chambers Ltd (PCC), the company through which the chambers receives monies owed to its barristers.
Judge Morrison explained: “Until June of this year, Mrs Goodfield had responsibility for the bank account into which fees due to barristers were paid, and for ensuring that those funds were then paid on to the relevant barrister.
“Following her departure, PCC began to discover that during the past five years, Mrs Goodfield had stolen in the order of £2.75m from the bank account.”
After being served earlier this month with proprietary and freezing injunctions granted by Mr Justice Edwin Johnson, “Mrs Goodfield produced an affidavit in which she candidly admitted to her wrongdoing; she had indeed taken the money and now bitterly regretted it”.
Mrs Goodfield has indicated that all of the money was spent on her lifestyle.
At the original without-notice hearing, Edwin Johnson J had been invited to and did, sit in private; he also agreed to make the anonymity order that PCC asked for.
On the matter coming before Judge Morrison last week for the inter partes hearing, he maintained the proprietary and freezing orders, and made further disclosure orders that PCC sought.
“I should say that Mrs Goodfield, who was throughout the hearing showing no little signs of distress, made no attempt to resist the orders asked for. Her demeanour was consistent with the approach taken in her written evidence which was that she could not quite come to terms with the scale of her wrongdoing which she could now so very clearly see.”
PCC told the judge that past members of chambers had not been told about this and it was not yet known if they would also be affected; it asked for anonymity be continued until the position was clear.
Allowing the matter to become public now would also put at risk the integrity of PCC as a going concern. Its counsel argued that the result could be something analogous to “a run on the bank”.
“High-earning barristers might decide to leave before their expenses were increased, something that they might consider a real possibility given the nature and extent of Mrs Goodfield’s wrongdoing: but this was not the only issue.
“Former members might make claims for sums unpaid to them, despite not having any continuing obligation to meet the expenses of the chambers. A spiral of decline could thus be the result of members of the chambers arriving at the view that they should not be last to leave.”
There was also the risk of solicitors using this as a reason to delay paying fees that were due, described by counsel as “an existential threat”.
But Judge Morrison rejected the arguments. The object of the hearing was not, as submitted, to protect the integrity of the chambers, “but rather to decide if PCC was entitled to the injunctions it asked for, along with the disclosure orders”. A public hearing would not defeat that.
The convenience of being able to give former members a detailed explanation of what had happened was also not a strong enough reason.
“Moreover I can see that former members of the chambers, and indeed solicitors’ firms having dealings with PCC, might want to know of the problem at the earliest opportunity.”
The judge was sceptical that “sophisticated members of a respected chambers would feel it necessary to seek to practise elsewhere when it was patent that their management colleagues were doing their utmost to recover the proceeds of an alleged fraud”.
He concluded that anonymity was not necessary either to secure the proper administration of justice or to protect the interests of PCC.
“Whilst it was appropriate to make such an order at the ex parte stage, in light of the admissions of Mrs Goodfield, such an order is not now necessary on her account.”
In a statement, PCC said: “Pump Court Chambers has discovered it has been the victim of a fraud by a former member of staff. This fraud took place some time ago and did not impact upon the operational running of chambers.
“Upon discovery we took immediate and decisive recovery action. We are pursuing all legal avenues vigorously. Chambers takes theft and fraud extremely seriously and has put in place new systems to address any future risks.
“Please rest assured that it is business as usual for our barristers and dedicated and trustworthy clerks, who remain fully committed to providing the highest standard of service to our clients. We appreciate your continued support during this time.
“As the matter is now in the hands of the police, we are unable to comment further at this time.”
Did the Chambers take out fidelity insurance cover on their staff?