David Greene denies allegation he intentionally misled decide and says he absolutely expects to be cleared

The sitting president of the Legislation Society faces an expert misconduct investigation after the Excessive Court docket revived a grievance towards him by an aggrieved former shopper.

David Greene, a companion at Edwin Coe and Legislation Society head honcho for 2020/21, is accused of intentionally deceptive a decide throughout a dispute with businessman David Davies about an unpaid invoice.

The Excessive Court docket determined yesterday that Greene has a case to reply, though it didn’t make any findings towards him. The case will return to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which had earlier struck out the grievance. Greene firmly denies the allegations and says he absolutely expects to be cleared.

All of it kicked off in 2008, when Davies’s agency Eco-Energy instructed Edwin Coe in a judicial evaluation towards Transport for London. They gained, however didn’t pursue damages till a few 12 months later. That led to a dispute about who precisely was chargeable for Edwin Coe’s charges for performing within the damages declare.

Edwin Coe had opened a brand new file in Davies’s title slightly than the corporate’s. This was as a result of, in line with Greene, Eco-Energy had “little or no cash” and the one manner he might proceed to behave was “on the idea that Mr Davies himself would meet our payments”. Davies disagreed that he was liable, saying that, as earlier than, Eco-Energy was the shopper — not him personally.

When the agency issued Davies with an bill for £7,218.74, he refused to pay. Edwin Coe took him to the county courtroom in 2012 and gained an order for cost of the £7k plus curiosity and prices.

On the time, neither facet informed the county courtroom about emails between Davies and Greene within the 12 months between the judicial evaluation and the damages declare. It was solely on enchantment that Davies argued that these emails proved there had been “no break within the chain of illustration”: the Eco-Energy case had by no means actually ended, successfully, so there was no justification for placing him personally down because the shopper.

In his efforts to get the county courtroom judgment overturned, the previous shopper alleged that Greene “had acted dishonestly and lied to the Court docket”. In 2016, the identical decide backed Edwin Coe once more, saying that “even when these emails have been earlier than me… they might have made no distinction”. He added that nothing within the emails urged that “the proof that Mr Greene gave me, both in writing or within the witness field, in any manner reveals him to be something aside from truthful”.

The 2021 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Davies then complained to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, once more alleging that “Mr Greene had intentionally and dishonestly lied”. The tribunal struck out the grievance in August 2019, mainly as a result of the second county courtroom resolution had cleared Greene.

That brings us to the Excessive Court docket, the place Davies appealed in a bid to get the grievance reinstated. Two senior judges agreed that the 2016 county count decision didn’t absolve Greene of a professional misconduct investigation. The grievance, they stated, alleged “breaches of three of the SRA Ideas 2011, which don’t rely upon proof of dishonesty… we predict that the SDT was sure to think about whether or not the conduct complained of breached these Ideas, even when it fell in need of deliberate dishonesty”.

The Excessive Court docket added:

“In our judgment, it’s at the least controversial that the disparity between what Mr Greene stated in proof and the place revealed by the correspondence is able to supporting a case that the previous was not solely deceptive however intentionally so, and never resembling to be defined as a product of mistaken recollection as a result of passage of time.”

The judges harassed that “we aren’t expressing any concluded view that Mr Greene has lied or behaved dishonestly or in breach {of professional} requirements. He has not but responded to the deserves of the grievance. Will probably be for the SDT to think about whether or not such a case is made out having heard all of the proof”.

In an announcement launched by means of his agency, Greene stated “I completely deny the allegations of Mr Davies and after I’m given the chance to place in proof, I absolutely anticipate the Tribunal to dismiss these claims as all courts and the Tribunal itself have completed beforehand”.

A spokesperson for Edwin Coe LLP stated that “the underlying occasions occurred some ten years in the past. Since then Mr Davies’ allegations have been thought-about each by the courtroom in civil proceedings, by the SRA and by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. All have discovered nothing in Mr Davies’ allegations”.

The agency added that it’s in search of permission to enchantment the Excessive Court docket’s ruling. The Legislation Society referred us to the statements above however issued no separate remark.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter