Judge criticises solicitors' 32-page letter on a draft judgment

What happened

A deputy High Court judge has criticised a claimant's solicitors over their response to his draft judgment, according to Legal Futures. Simon Gleeson ruled against Kenneth Gill in a claim over bonus payments Mr Gill said were due from his former employer, the quantity surveying firm Sweett Group, now part of Currie & Brown.

After circulating the judgment in draft for corrections, the judge received a 32-page letter "expressed in combative tones", followed by a further five-page letter. He said the letters sought to introduce new evidence and new arguments and to reargue a number of points. In his words, the claimant's solicitors "treated the draft judgment as if it were a solicitor's letter from the other side".

The letters also explicitly alleged fraud, which the judge said counsel had been "extremely careful" not to do during the hearing. They further questioned his impartiality, because Clifford Chance, where he is a consultant, had done work for one of Sweett's funders. He said he had performed internal conflicts checks on all of the parties, and that discovering the connection only after the draft was circulated was sufficient to dispose of the issue, applying the principles in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties.

Legal Futures reports that the judge indicated sanctions would follow for the solicitors at Keystone Law. He said the question of responsibility for the letter, and the appropriate consequences, will be considered at a further hearing. At this stage, he said, it did not seem that counsel had any hand in producing or sending it.

What it means for solicitors

The judge noted that the Court of Appeal has made it "crystal clear" that a party may only ask a judge to reconsider part of a draft judgment in the "most exceptional circumstances".

The report also shows how the conduct of correspondence can become a live issue in itself. The judge said there is "an issue here as to whether this conduct should be taken into account in the assessment of costs".

This article reports one judge's remarks at an interim stage. It is not a statement of the law, and it does not tell any reader what to do in a particular case.

Where Counsel AI fits

Counsel AI is software, not a law firm. Its drafts and first reads cite the section of legislation they rely on.

This story is about the tone and content of a letter, not about citations.