*/
David Wurtzel casts the spotlight on a new niche legal disciplinary practice which specialises in private prosecutions for fraud and corporate crime
Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM) has been operating since March 2012 in the niche area of representing clients who wish to bring private prosecutions for fraud, counterfeiting and corporate crime. At the moment they say they are the only such firm – but they do not expect things to remain that way for long. As a legal disciplinary practice (LDP), the directors consist of a solicitor (dual-qualified in Australia), a barrister who spent nine years in the Government Legal Service (GLS), and a barrister who works within the company while continuing his self-employed practice at the Bar. The company has no relationship with his chambers.
It has long been known that many police forces lack the resources to prosecute such matters and refer alleged victims instead to the civil remedies available, a situation which is becoming more and not less common. EMM chose to try to fill that gap. Like other new businesses they have begun by trying to build up a client base. Two of the directors fulfil the solicitor’s role of doing the initial advice and vetting with clients, while the barrister provides a “strategic oversight of the case from a barrister’s perspective”. He attends meetings with clients, either after his own court day or in the early morning.
Clarifying roles
The firm is required to have a policy to advise clients throughout what the barrister’s roles are and in what capacity he is acting. Clients, as in any other practice, have to be served with a letter setting out how they can complain and in what capacity the barrister is acting. The client is given the opportunity to choose whether or not to instruct the barrister in their case in his capacity as a self-employed barrister. When I spoke to them early in July, none of the cases had yet reached trial stage, but the company feels free to instruct whoever is appropriate. The barrister is 25 years’ Call so he may not be the obvious person to send to the magistrates’ court, where some private prosecutions would begin.
The firm itself is regulated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, but the two barrister directors are at the same time regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Both regulators were informed of the formation of the LDP. As with other private prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service can take over or discontinue one of their cases and they recognise therefore that they have to keep to the same standards of the CPS, including adherence to the Attorney General’s guidelines on disclosure.
Although the company hopes to expand at the moment it would be on the basis of taking on more people in the role of solicitors rather than to develop a group of in-house counsel. It is all still new. For the former GLS lawyer, it represents independence and flexibility; to the barrister it is the chance to take part in a new enterprise with new things happening. So far, no one has any regrets.
David Wurzel is Consultant Editor of Counsel
It has long been known that many police forces lack the resources to prosecute such matters and refer alleged victims instead to the civil remedies available, a situation which is becoming more and not less common. EMM chose to try to fill that gap. Like other new businesses they have begun by trying to build up a client base. Two of the directors fulfil the solicitor’s role of doing the initial advice and vetting with clients, while the barrister provides a “strategic oversight of the case from a barrister’s perspective”. He attends meetings with clients, either after his own court day or in the early morning.
Clarifying roles
The firm is required to have a policy to advise clients throughout what the barrister’s roles are and in what capacity he is acting. Clients, as in any other practice, have to be served with a letter setting out how they can complain and in what capacity the barrister is acting. The client is given the opportunity to choose whether or not to instruct the barrister in their case in his capacity as a self-employed barrister. When I spoke to them early in July, none of the cases had yet reached trial stage, but the company feels free to instruct whoever is appropriate. The barrister is 25 years’ Call so he may not be the obvious person to send to the magistrates’ court, where some private prosecutions would begin.
The firm itself is regulated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, but the two barrister directors are at the same time regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Both regulators were informed of the formation of the LDP. As with other private prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service can take over or discontinue one of their cases and they recognise therefore that they have to keep to the same standards of the CPS, including adherence to the Attorney General’s guidelines on disclosure.
Although the company hopes to expand at the moment it would be on the basis of taking on more people in the role of solicitors rather than to develop a group of in-house counsel. It is all still new. For the former GLS lawyer, it represents independence and flexibility; to the barrister it is the chance to take part in a new enterprise with new things happening. So far, no one has any regrets.
David Wurzel is Consultant Editor of Counsel
David Wurtzel casts the spotlight on a new niche legal disciplinary practice which specialises in private prosecutions for fraud and corporate crime
Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM) has been operating since March 2012 in the niche area of representing clients who wish to bring private prosecutions for fraud, counterfeiting and corporate crime. At the moment they say they are the only such firm – but they do not expect things to remain that way for long. As a legal disciplinary practice (LDP), the directors consist of a solicitor (dual-qualified in Australia), a barrister who spent nine years in the Government Legal Service (GLS), and a barrister who works within the company while continuing his self-employed practice at the Bar. The company has no relationship with his chambers.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
