header-logo header-logo

07 October 2022
Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Contempt
printer mail-detail

‘Burn it’ solicitor escapes prison

City solicitor Raymond McKeeve has been given a £25,000 fine and ordered to pay £610,000 costs but escaped prison after allegedly telling a client to ‘burn’ evidence.

The former Jones Day partner was found in contempt of court last year for intentionally causing the destruction of an encrypted communication system despite there being a court order in place to preserve the evidence. The e-data belonged to McKeeve’s client, Today Development Partners, which was set up by a co-founder of Ocado. There was at the time an ongoing legal dispute between Ocado and the former co-founder over alleged misuse of confidential information, which has since been settled.

McKeeve told the court that he panicked and instructed an IT manager to ‘burn it’.

Sentencing McKeeve this week, Mr Justice Adam Johnson called McKeeve’s conduct a ‘spontaneous act of colossal stupidity’.

Johnson J said: ‘This is plainly a serious matter but not of such character as to warrant a custodial sentence.’

Deborah Ruff, head of international arbitration at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said: ‘While the circumstances of this case were unusual—criminal proceedings and relating to a search order—and dramatic, it is a salutary reminder of the more mundane disclosure processes which are part of most litigation in England and Wales as well as in other common law jurisdictions.

‘Mr McKeeve will be breathing a huge sigh of relief that a custodial sentence wasn’t handed down, despite the judge having felt a “strong initial impulse towards” imposing one. This case should serve as a reminder to all lawyers of the importance of complying with—and urging their clients to have in place and comply with—document retention policies, as well as regulations and legislation governing document retention.

‘Businesses must also have suitable and robust document creation, circulation and retention policies in place.

‘In the age of emails and instant messaging services, it is very easy to say things with no thought of them being read and used in a court of law. It’s equally easy to forget the duty to preserve them when a dispute is in prospect or underway or the penalties and reputational damage if they are destroyed or not disclosed when this is obligatory. Doing so could have very serious consequences.’

Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Contempt
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll