'Womble by night and we womble by day,
Looking for disclosable material to trundle away'
Bombshell evidence has emerged in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry this week showing that Womble Bond Dickinson advised its client to "suppress" incriminating information "in a way that looks legitimate".
The Post Office publicly insisted for years that accounting discrepancies in its branches were the fault of pilfering sub-postmasters. In fact the errors were due to Horizon, the shoddy IT system provided by Fujitsu which was known within the business to be defective.
Many innocent postmasters had their lives destroyed by the Post Office's private prosecutions, suffering bankruptcy, wrecked reputations and ostracisation. Some took their own lives.
Now regarded as the largest miscarriage of justice in British legal history, the cover-up was exposed when crusading sub-postmasters fought back in court and obtained a £58m settlement.
Womble Bond Dickinson acted for the Post Office for much of the relevant time and is understood to have pulled in enormous fees of £37.5m between 2013 and 2023 for its tainted work.
In Thursday’s hearing into the scandal, the inquiry produced a 2016 email sent by Amy Prime. Now a managing associate at Wombles, at the time she appears to have been a newly qualified disputes solicitor, at legacy firm Bond Dickinson.
Before the NQ sent the email to Post Office lawyer Rodric Williams it was checked over by Andrew Parsons, her supervising partner, who fed in his own changes.
The stance taken in the email is a bold one which it seems incredibly unlikely an NQ would be left to adopt. A source said the email was crafted by Parsons as part of a wider strategy operated by the firm's Post Office team. The degree of involvement of other partners is likely to become clearer when Wombles lawyers appear at the inquiry to explain their conduct.
In the email, Prime informed Williams that Freeths “have requested that we provide them with Post Office's Investigations Guidelines since 1998 (including any revisions to date)”.
She expressed Bond Dickinson’s concern that parts of the guidelines “could be spun to show that Post Office was not taking issues with Horizon seriously and were trying to ignore any issues which were raised”.
She therefore advised that “Although we may face some criticism later on, we are proposing to try and suppress the guidelines for as long as possible”.
Prime said that, “For now, we'll do what we can to avoid disclosure” and “try to do so in a way that looks legitimate”.
She even admitted that “we are ultimately withholding a key document” which, she said “may attract some criticism from Freeths”.
Prime asked Williams to tell her if he disagreed with the firm’s strategy, “Otherwise, we'll adopt this approach until such time as we sense the criticism is becoming serious”.
With Wombles’ reputation in the toilet and calls for culpable lawyers to face prison time, it’s fair to say that time has arrived.
Exhibit 1.
At the hearing, Williams accepted that he opened the email and that there was no evidence that he disagreed with the “concerning” advice, but he said he couldn’t recall reading it.
Elsewhere it was revealed that Williams referred to former sub-postmaster Tim McCormack dismissively as a "bluffer" when McCormack warned the Post Office about issues with Horizon in 2015. A year earlier the Post Office lawyer confidently emailed colleagues, "We don't need to do research on Horizon".
Parsons recently had his Wombles profile amended to wipe the reference to Post Office work from his profile, like fellow WBD partner Stephen Dilley before him.
Previously, Parsons was proud to say that his "Examples of experience include advising: A national organisation on defending a class action by 500+ claimants regarding allegations that its IT systems suffered from defects that led to individuals being held wrongfully liable for financial losses and convicted of theft and false accounting". That section has now gone.
Lost in the post.
But it looks like they’re onto him despite the distancing exercise. Counsel for the Inquiry noted ominously that the role of Parsons in advising the Post Office to hide evidence and make it look legitimate was “a matter we’ll take up with others later”.
A spokesperson for WBD said, "The firm has great sympathy for all those affected by the failings of the Horizon IT system and recognise the very real personal impact that this has had for those involved".
They added that, "Under the terms of the ongoing Horizon Public Inquiry, we are unable to comment further but continue to engage fully in that process".
Let the top firms come to you on LawyerUp when they like you for a role. It's available on the App Store and Google Play.
Comments
10
2
Yet somehow Womble Bond Dickinson didn’t get the golden 💩 this year!
5
3
don't worry 1659 they are assured of a special place in legal history
11
2
current MP got himself voted in off back off mega profits from PO. That was his only "talent". Apparently disappeared now!!!!
12
4
as a former Womble makes me sick to remember how much Any got off the back of this . Regular six figure bonuses. Disgusted.
11
2
All litigators well know the rules on this. The court cannot police the parties' compliance with their disclosure obligations, and so the solicitors must do so. I can see that a NQ would not want to stand up to a partner but even at her level, when she was tapping out that email, some very loud alarm bells should have been ringing. As for the partner, well...
17
2
iTV did a great job bringing the post office scandal to the knowledge of the wider public. Do they not realise that Womble Bond Dickinson are on their legal panel ? Time they put an end to that .
26
3
The Wombles must be reassured to have such a gifted orator and communicator at the helm through this situation. The way Paul Stewart takes charge of the public narrative and swiftly yet effectively delivers concise updates and clear bearing to the internal team is something other Managing Partners must just sit back and admire…
9
2
When I was 1PQE, I was told not to disclose some “unhelpful” documents. I was lucky as my firm’s compliance partner was really approachable and would always go into bat for an assistant when needed.
That, however, was almost 20 years ago and I am not convinced I would have been so lucky if I was a 1PQE now.
15
2
To the suggestion that Beezer isn’t smart…we’ll see in due course but so far he’s let Steven Dilley take the rap for Castleton and brought Parsons and Prime in on Bates and let them fly unfettered. He’ll no doubt say in the words of Manuel: “I know nothing”
13
2
Bates accuses Post Office firm of being ‘disingenuous at best’
Bates accused the Post Office and its external lawyers Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) of failing in their disclosure obligations. Bates said from the very start claimant firm Freeths had written to request copies of the known error logs, but that WBD replied it was not sure if such a thing existed. This was ‘disingenuous at best’, said Bates.
He added: ‘We/our expert stumbled across the fact that [system failures] existed, and POL had not volunteered this information, so we had to push for their disclosure as well. Hundreds of thousands of documents were provided which was no doubt a deliberate attempt to drown us in documents, and then key disclosure was being provided right up to and including the trial which could have derailed it and was extremely frustrating.
14
7
Wonder what WBD board member, “equality and inclusion champion” and Southampton partner Jess Tresham thinks of what her office chums were getting upto here? Rubbed her hands with glee at the millions of pounds worth of fees pouring into the company and signed off the bonuses it seems.
38
2
As a non litigator it has been so boring over the years to be lectured at by Andy Tom Paul etc how Post Office litigators were keeping the firm afloat , and them getting culture destroying bonuses from the Board . well they have now well and truely sunk us all.
16
4
what a legacy Johnny Blair! You will go down in history but not as you wished.
8
4
This needs to be investigated. If necessary the legal team must be taken to court and prosecuted.
Another example of giving the legal profession a bad name.
5
3
Others have already said everything that needs to be said, but I’m shocked at the contents of that email! In what world is that ever ok to send! I thought it was a ROF parody at first. There are often times we must play close to the line, but there’s a difference in playing close to the line on the right side of our ethical and professional duty, and knowing you’re stepping over the line AND broadcasting it in an email!!! The solicitors and the firm need a heavy rebuke. As if the public didn’t already distrust solicitors!!!
5
3
Why is it only Roll on Friday that has the spine to actually point the finger directly at Wombles on these failures.
So many of the articles fail to refer to the firm by name or imply all the law firms were up to this.
2
3
Prison time for Uncle Bulgaria and Madame Cholet?
30
2
@nice Womble 19 April 24 21:24 - as another Womble, I can confirm this. It was irksome to have Tom Beezer (a man so thick you can chew his stupidity) constantly trumpeting the post office case. Nice to see that his richly deserved comeuppance is on its way.
6
3
Clean and nice Wombles need to get out now me thinks.
The brand is damaged beyond repair and you will be too if you stay there.
The stench will see all the household name clients leaving, they cannot be associated with a firm like this.
16
3
WBD has a rare talent for ruining careers and lives, selling out their own and trampling over others through a heady mix of incompetence, stupidity, self-preservation, arrogance, outright gullibility and nefariousness. It’s the poisonous cocktail favoured by the kind of perma-grinning bullshitters that smile at folk whilst simultaneously planning when to stab them in the back.
That they’ve had a significant hand in the Post Office scandal (and a lot more besides, believe me) should be a surprise to precisely nobody.
19
3
For most Wombles the news and level of deception carried out by Tom Beezer and Andy Parsons has been akin to when the world found out the jimmy saville was a pedo. We are all reeling. I just hope the partners do the right thing and sack the whole board and kick Andy out. Amy Prime is just cannon fodder to them and should not be the focus here.
10
3
The person who hates WBD so much that they post negative comments about them on RoF articles that doesn’t mention them, must be absolutely loving it.
They’ve repeatedly said what a bunch of scuzzers they are and it looks like they were right all along.
7
4
Disgraceful conduct by all the legal staff involved. They must be made to account.They have forgotten the cardinal principle that as an admitted solicitor you are an Officer of the Court. As a law student preparing for the law society Part II finals, I was vetted (like my contemporaries) by a panel of solicitors for them to decide whether I was a fit and proper person to be admitted on to the Rolls even if all exams were passed.I was asked what I felt was the most important quality for a Solicitor; my answer of "integrity" was appauded. Too many, now forget or ignore these principles. The rot started with the 1974 Act ss I said at the time.
9
9
Im not sure why Legal eagle has it in for Jess Tresham as she was a relative newcomer to Wombles and has had the good sense to resign to start anew elsewhere . The female board members in succession at what was / is WBD who will have known all about this dreadful affair are Fiona O’Kane ( of legacy Bond Pearce ) Paula Dillon and Claire Brook - she who vanished overnight from the board earlier this year.
4
3
And worst of all, neither of them can spell ‘suppress’ correctly!
6
3
It looks as if WBD hasn’t suspended this employee
3
3
Bending the rules is the new norm, so a bit of doping is OK, if you also give money to charity, using sandpaper on a cricket ball, is shining the ball, and betting on football matches that you play in is a nice little earner if you are not paid enough. What is all the fuss about ? Surely rules are there to be broken, and the Wombles are the go to firm to tell you how to break the rules !!!
15
3
small Paul as Beezer calls him is way out of his depth. So sad a once great firm is imploding
10
4
Not disclosing evidence = tampering with the evidence
Tampering with the evidence = Conspiring to pervert the course of justice
Conspiring to pervert the course of justice = Fraud
The punitive damages against Trump and Giuliani for hundreds of millions, should now be applied to UK law and to shut down any firm who even thinks about breaking the law. The biggest hurdle to this involves the fact that the SRA are also the insurer, and have conflicts of interest which could shut down the entire legal industry and therein lies the problem.
Bates and Co should sue Wombles for defamation and get a mega hundred million punitive damages claim and the SRA can pay for it all. It is obviously not acceptable for innocent hard working solicitors to pay for the damages of a few bad ones, and this needs to be immediately dealt with before its too late. The system is flawed and needs to be fixed
6
3
In this situation do you go after retired and current Womble partners who shared the spoils or make the current lot pay?
14
3
We all knew this was coming and only tip of the icenerg. Utter disgrace. We all know Andy, Tom and Paul S are behind this - and all partners by their silence are therefore complicit. Yall need to speak up now.
The firm is up for a number of ESG awards next week, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they come home empty handed. Would make very bad publicity for the Legal500 team indeed after this news.
The firm is finnito.
7
4
@discomfort Why not? Their career clearly benefited from doing what they did, and the fact they're still there indicates they have no problem with how the firm operates.
14
6
I was admitted as a litigation solicitor on the same day as the NQ and no way in hell would I have sent that email.
BUT, I trained and then worked in a firm where I wasn’t running on zero hours sleep and unmanageable stress levels and where I would have been confident of support in my refusal from risk partners. This may not have been the case for the NQ in question.
She should lose her practicing certificate because ultimately she breached her duty to the court and we can’t have people who have done that in the profession. But we should also have compassion for her and realise that while a mistake like this makes her unsuited to being a solicitor it does not make her an evil person.
20
4
Womble Bond Dicks Newcastle office was refurbished using the spoils of the Post Office litigation, but is now briefing against the staff involved.
Expect this story to open up the fissures which have existed for years. Will Bond Pearce divorce Dickinson Dees over this?
1
1
Not Wombles but some of these posts could be describing our managing partner.
He insists fee earners should be “commercial” and not “lawyerly”. Has a complete disregard to his professional obligations and pressures junior members of staff to do likewise. Pat’s himself on the back for every success and runs a mile when something goes wrong, and just shakes his head and tuts that the junior is so incompetent.
Ring any bells Steve?
3
1
Malus anyone? Hope these gravy train partners and solicitors haven't spent all their bonuses...
6
1
Maybe Quality Solicitors will swoop in and take over WBD once this 💩 show is over?
6
1
Hope the inquiry asks Beezer why Dilley in his email evidence to enquiry as far back as first Castleton case was copying in Wombles head of internal professinal indemnity when that only done when Wombles think they done sineting wrong capable of leading to a claim. Is it they knew about non disclosure Horizon issues and kept quiet. They should have advised PO to disclose or ceased acting. First year degree stuff.
5
2
after Dickie Dees won the Golden Turd MP wee Johnny Blair names his dog Friday in honour. This remains his greatest achievement
4
1
yep big office refurbs laterals hugely overpaid big pay rises we know where the money was coming from now
8
2
Did Womble Bond Dickinson lawyers “suppress" incriminating information "in a way that looks legitimate" on other matters and if so, should each of these other cases be overturned?
If so, the UK’s biggest miscarriage of justice just got much, much larger…
4
1
"we should also have compassion for her and realise that while a mistake like this makes her unsuited to being a solicitor it does not make her an evil person"
Yes. I think that's about right.
We're not suggesting taking her livelihood away here, that would be far too harsh. We're simply saying that she should be removed from her professional role and never allowed to practice again. After which she would be free to work as a grave-digger, corpse-handler, or rat catcher for the rest of her days as a form of penitence for her misdeed.
That's what compassion is.
13
1
Siri, is there a more effective way to kill a law firm than having a public inquiry reveal an email which proves your business chose to breach disclosure rules in order to prolong the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK legal history?
10
1
"We are holding a key document. If you instruct us to withhold it, we cannot continue to act for you and won’t be able to earn all these millions.”
There, fixed your integrity problem for you.
4
1
Another dreadful day of revelations to come.
10
1
Great to see this report in the Law Society Gazette
He said that the decision not to prosecute a Dorset sub-postmistress could not be kept secret and that ‘everybody will find out what we are doing’ which would open the Post Office up to criticism and undermine faith in Horizon. Such a U-turn, he added, would be ‘exploited’ by sub-postmasters and ‘send a green light for defendants to get hold of their member of parliament and result in copulation’ (sic: Blake clarified that Singh meant to say ‘capitulation’).
And that folks demonstrates the vindictive narrow minded stupidity of the in-house legal team at the Post Office who were working on this case.
They wanted to win at all costs, and were prepared to win at any cost, even though they lacked the wit to propery articulate things.
And of course, they had a willing stooge litigation firm in WBD with the same objectives and outlook.
It is scandalous with a tinge of criminality and a massive helping of stupidity.
4
1
I predict another WBD story in this week’s RoF. The stuff which has come out this week is almost as bad as what came out last week.
I forsee;
A Parsons nose, an abandoned dog whimpering, the letters ARS or possibly SRA, porridge, a Womble decapitated and finally, a huge turd with golden glitter sprinkled upon it.
Take from that what you will.
5
1
I bet Legal 500 and Chambers will fail to mention any of this, thus proving they are useless
6
1
The failure of the SRA to levy meaningful fines on WBD sends a message to the profession that the rules for lawyers are now optional.
Indeed, anyone walking around the plush Newcastle offices of Wombles can see the rewards on offer.
6
1
Can you get insurance for deliberately breaching your legal duties?
7
2
If they did it on this case, did they do it on every case?
9
1
If you want proof that Womble Bond Dickinson is rotten to the core, this is it.
The management at Womble Bond Dickinson have known about this email for a while. Rather than report their lawyers to the SRA, they gave them bonuses and promoted them.
That’s why action must be taken against management of Womble Bond Dickinson by the SRA.
7
1
The inquiry should report that Womble Bond Dickinson’s conduct around disclosure almost certainly had the effect of lengthening the Post Office litigation, meaning some postmasters died with criminal convictions they would have had overturned, every taxpayer has had to pay higher sums in compensation and Womble Bond Dickinson lawyers obtained more money in legal fees.
8
1
The right thing to do would be for Wombles to pay back the £37m they raked in. That should then be put towards the compensation for the wronged postmasters. It is criminal what the firm did.