The criticism of Freshfields by the High Court stems from their handling of a draft judgment, related to a patents dispute, without informing the opposing legal team according to procedure.
- Deputy Judge Pat Treacy labelled Freshfields’ failure to communicate draft judgment changes to Kingsley Napley as ‘regrettable.’
- Freshfields, representing Convatec in a compensation claim, proposed changes to a draft judgment without prior discussion with the claimant’s solicitors.
- The High Court outlined the necessity for all parties involved in legal proceedings to be informed promptly about proposed changes for transparency.
- While some of Freshfields’ suggestions were incorporated as minor clarifications, the process raised concerns over added costs and inefficient communication.
The High Court has taken a critical stance against Freshfields for suggesting amendments to a draft judgment without prior consultation with the opposing solicitors, Kingsley Napley. Deputy Judge Pat Treacy described this failure to communicate as ‘regrettable,’ emphasising the increased workload and expenses borne by the involved parties due to this oversight.
Acting on behalf of Convatec, a company embroiled in a patents dispute over employee compensation, Freshfields circulated an email at 10:31 am on 7 August. This email not only included corrections for typographical errors, which had been mutually agreed upon, but also additional changes that had not been pre-discussed with Kingsley Napley.
Judge Treacy highlighted that this lack of early communication left Kingsley Napley first learning of these proposals only when copied in Freshfields’ email submission to the court. Kingsley Napley objected, considering them unnecessary and were dissatisfied with the lack of advance dialogue.
Freshfields defended its actions, attributing the delay in discussions with junior counsel to the vacation period. They further noted that Kingsley Napley was nonetheless afforded the opportunity to respond to the proposed changes, thus ensuring that the court was aware of their objections.
The court noted an essential judicial principle: in exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of a draft, it is imperative that all parties be informed immediately, allowing objections if any arise. Judge Treacy expressed dissatisfaction with Freshfields’ explanation, which she felt failed to adequately address this fundamental requirement.
Although some minor clarifications were made to the judgment following Freshfields’ suggestions, Judge Treacy remarked on the inefficiency and fragmentation caused by the piecemeal nature of communication through emails, which necessitated more work and incurred additional costs for all parties involved.
The episode underscores the critical importance of prompt and transparent communication between legal representatives to ensure efficient and fair judicial proceedings.
