Judge Condemns Law Firm’s Unprecedented Draft Judgment Objections
A judge criticizes Keystone Law’s unprecedented objections to a draft judgment in a case involving unpaid bonuses, highlighting legal conduct concerns.
A judge has expressed shock at a law firm’s response to his draft judgment, describing it as “about as far away from the conduct expected of solicitors conducting litigation as it is possible to get.” Simon Gleeson, a deputy High Court judge and consultant at Clifford Chance, criticized Keystone Law for their handling of the case.
The case involved a claim by Kenneth Gill against his former employer, Sweett Group, over unpaid bonuses. After circulating the draft judgment, Judge Gleeson received a 32-page letter from Keystone Law, demanding a reversal of certain findings and introducing new evidence.
Judge’s Response to the Letter
Judge Gleeson stated that the letter, followed by a five-page addendum, treated the draft judgment as if it were a solicitor’s letter, which is not in line with expected conduct. He emphasized that the Court of Appeal allows reconsideration of draft judgments only in “most exceptional circumstances.”
The judge also noted that the letters alleged fraud, a claim not made during the hearing, and questioned his impartiality due to Clifford Chance’s connection to Sweett Group’s funder. He clarified that internal conflict checks were conducted, and the connection was unrelated to the case.
Consequences and Ongoing Proceedings
Judge Gleeson indicated that sanctions may follow for Keystone Law. He stated that the responsibility for the letter and its consequences will be addressed in a further hearing. A Keystone Law spokeswoman acknowledged the judge’s comments but declined to comment further due to the ongoing nature of the case.
