EXCLUSIVE Paralegal threatened with prison after refusing to return firm’s laptop

_'No.'

A paralegal has been threatened with contempt of court and prison after she failed to give back a law firm's laptop containing confidential data.

Maria Pruzhanskaya was loaned a Dell Vostro laptop by Maitland Walker LLP in 2023 when she was placed with the firm through Flex Legal, now owned by Mishcon de Reya.

The computer contained confidential data regarding an ongoing case against Govia Thameslink which is being heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

To enable her to work on the matter, Pruzhanskaya gave undertakings to the CAT which made her part of a ‘confidentiality ring’, in which the firm agreed to have sensitive data destroyed when an advisor left the case, and in which she agreed not to disclose it without the relevant consent and to securely dispose of it at the conclusion of the proceedings.

But after she completed her engagement with the firm in November 2023, she was reluctant to give back the laptop. She wouldn’t hand it to couriers, and she wouldn’t hand it over to someone from the firm, either.

Pruzhanskaya insisted that she was “ready and willing” to return the device, only the firm “forgot” to collect it from her when she left, and when a courier came in December, “I asked for ID - and he ran away”.

In a humdinger of a hearing which joined the paralegal as a party to the proceedings, puzzled CAT President the Honourable Sir Marcus Smith said, “This does not come close to explaining why, months later, the laptop remains in Ms Pruzhanskaya’s possession”.

Pruzhanskaya, who has also worked at Simmons & Simmons and Withersworldwide and harbours aspirations of becoming a solicitor, represented herself at the hearing, where she portrayed herself as a stickler for confidentiality who was only retaining the laptop to maintain the security of the data.

“What I suggest [is] to meet in person, not to pop into my house for a second, not to throw the laptop [with] the confidential information in the office that someone will open it for me, and not to go to an office in two hours straight away when everyone [is] on break, as Flex Legal offered to me”, she said.

The judge said it was “quite clear" that Maitland Walker had "bent over backwards" to attempt to secure the laptop, and that Pruzhanskaya had given “no proper reason” for failing to return it.

In advance of the hearing he suggested that Pruzhanskaya could short circuit the whole affair by simply handing over the equipment when she attended the tribunal. The transcript reveals how well that went:

THE PRESIDENT: Really what I'm going to ask is: do you have the laptop with you today? I mean, we suggested you might bring it.
PRUZHANSKAYA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
PRUZHANSKAYA: Yeah, when I received in the mail yesterday, I specifically requested who was writing to me because it was written "I suggest", but it's not an order and a direction.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it was not, I can't direct you to hand it up –
PRUZHANSKAYA: Was it you? Because it wasn't signed.
THE PRESIDENT: Ms Pruzhanskaya, I act through the very helpful Registry, who send letters out on my behalf, by the Tribunal. It was not an order, it was not a directive; it was a suggestion, because if you're saying "I'm willing to give up the laptop, it's just that Maitland Walker have failed to collect it properly", then one way of resolving all of this is for you to bring it here and we can sort it out now. But you haven't done that, and there we are.
PRUZHANSKAYA: Because they refuse to engage –
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, it is on this occasion, Ms Pruzhanskaya, you.
PRUZHANSKAYA: Pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're giving –
PRUZHANSKAYA: I am here for the hearing –
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, that's fine. If you don't want to do it, I can't force you, not without an order, so that's fine.
PRUZHANSKAYA: No, I will give it, but I was called to the hearing and we are talking about this –
THE PRESIDENT: No, Ms Pruzhanskaya, you are clearly not willing and that's fine.
PRUZHANSKAYA: I am willing.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you?
PRUZHANSKAYA: I am.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if that's the case, Ms Malloch, do we want to talk about how the matter can be resolved more quickly? Ms Pruzhanskaya, how are you going to return the laptop, if you're willing? Well, how?
PRUZHANSKAYA: Should I ...?
THE PRESIDENT: Just tell me how we're going to resolve this. If you're willing to resolve matters, then we can -- you see, let me be frank, you've been quite evasive in terms of not answering your intentions regarding the laptop. This is the first occasion you've actually said that you're willing to return it. Now, if that's the case, then explain to us how you're going to do it and we can move on a little bit more quickly. But the ball's in your court there.

Further back and forth resulted in an exasperated Sir Marcus Smith exclaiming, “I am not Maitland Walker, I am president of this Tribunal and a High Court judge. You can hand it over to me, you can hand it over to anyone. Now, you've chosen not to do that and that's why we are having to proceed”.

Maitland Walker’s barrister, Kirsty Malloch of Exchange Chambers, said the circumstances of the hearing were “somewhat extraordinary” and warned that Pruzhanskaya's use of the confidential information had “escalated”.

She told the tribunal that in the days leading up to the hearing, Pruzhanskaya had emailed the claimant’s statement of costs to senior individuals at Govia Thameslink accompanied by “inappropriate and factually inaccurate comments”.

Freshfields, Govia Thameslink’s lawyers, had alerted Maitland Walker to the fact that the email addresses the paralegal used were not readily available to the general public. Pruzhanskaya maintained that they were.

“There is now concern that Ms Pruzhanskaya is potentially using the confidential information for her own purposes”, said Malloch.

Pruzhanskaya is pursuing an employment claim against her old firm and at one point asked the judge, “Do you think my English has anything to do with the conduct of Maitland Walker towards me?”

He declined to take the bait and in a comment which was probably not directed at Malloch, he later said, “I'd be grateful if none of you would interrupt while I make the ruling”.

The CAT’s written judgment noted that “A number of distractions have been raised by Ms Pruzhanskaya over the course of these months" including the "irrelevant" suggestion of "negligence on the part of Maitland Walker in the handling of confidential information”.

The three-person panel said she had attempted to use the laptop as "leverage" in negotiations with Maitland Walker which “underlines the wilfulness” in her “refusal” to return it.

Pruzhanskaya was ordered to give back the Dell and either return the confidential data or confirm she had destroyed it within seven days, or risk prison.

The judge said he was “significantly inclined” to make her pay all £80,000 of Maitland Walker’s claimed costs, but he managed to resist the impulse and ordered her to make an interim payment of £10,000 instead, with the remaining £70k to be subject to a detailed assessment.

The paralegal appeared stunned, exclaiming at the hearing, “I don't know what to say, because I came here to raise questions about negligence, I came here to raise questions about that I made protected disclosure, and in turn these people didn't collect, these people didn't treat me correctly”.

“Ms Pruzhanskaya, Ms Pruzhanskaya, I'm going to stop you now”, said the judge, “I've made my order, that's the end of the matter…I think you understand what I have done”.

“Yes, I understood what you have done, and I understood what they have done, especially Ms Malloch”, retorted Pruzhanskaya.

None of the parties would tell RollOnFriday whether the laptop had been returned in line with the order. Flex CEO Kate Gaskell told ROF, “We have no comment to make on the hearing, save to say that the individual involved in it (Maria Pruzhanskaya) is no longer working via Flex”.

Pruzhanskaya told ROF, “I didn’t break any undertaking… I wasn’t served the application, I wasn’t served an application to become a party, I wasn’t served an application for an injunction, I didn’t know what would happen until I was at the court”.

“People failed to collect everything in a secure way. I work for them, they paid me £12,000 and now they took me to the court and claimed that I had to pay to them £80,000”, she said.

LU icon Join thousands of candidates from hundreds of firms and businesses on LawyerUp, the app where top employers get in touch directly when they like you for a role. It's available on the App Store and Google Play.

Comments

F around and get found out

Blimey. Even giving her for a second the benefit of the doubt, this shows an astonishing arrogance or complete ignorance of how the law works or both.

Honestly, lawyers can't do anything right. You leave client info on a train, you get walloped (https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/lawyer-struck-briefcase-lie-raises-thousands-appeal). You keep it very, very safe and you still get walloped.

Some people only understand [redacted].

'Pruzhanskaya told ROF, “I didn’t break any undertaking… I wasn’t served the application, I wasn’t served an application not to become a party, I wasn’t served an application for an injunction, I didn’t know what would happen until I was at the court”.'

What?

Overall, she kept the laptop too long and refused to give it back. She's an idiot.

When leaving an organisation always give the laptop and phone back. Less important is the big wide screen, keyboard, laptop bag and headset as they are less likely to have records of who has what. Learn from your elders.

@Fuming, it don't sound she kept client info 'safe' tho; from what's reported here, she emailed the opposing side outside of her employment duties, using emails not in the public domain for some inexplicable reason which understandably would have raised concerns by her former client/employer given how uncooperative she sounds to have been in returning the laptop? And then she's all like 'I don't understand why I'm being persecuted now, poor me'. Unless this is very biased reporting here, she sounds like she had this coming.

Proper Freeman on the Land logic here. Next she’ll be making noises about needing a wet signature and refusing the jurisdiction of Admiralty law.

@scratchy WHOOSH

She's missed the boat with Ince, but perhaps Womble Bond Dickinson are hiring?

I kept the stapler. The senior partner of my old firm can pick it up in person if he hacks RoF to obtain my IP address and brings two forms of notarized ID.

Poor bloody idiot. She could have bought herself a new Dell Vostro for £500.

See, people say they want to accommodate neurodiversity in the workplace...

What a waste of everyone's time, I hope they whack her with the full £80k packet.

I know that the paralegal is the one in the wrong and should simply pitch up at the offices and hand it over BUT what on earth is going on with the firm’s IT department not to install a kill switch on the laptop? I thought that was standard with all firms in case of loss or theft, let alone when giving access to highly confidential data covered here.

If I had been there as the judge I would have told her to get in a taxi now go home get it and come back and hand it over to the court. If she refused to incur the cost I am sure the law firm would have paid for the taxi for her to collect it. This seems to be moving into potential contempt of court territory. Also if she is abusing the information on it she probably has that copied illegally anyway so why not just hand back the wretched lap top anyway. It sounds like her employer is Flex legal and she was on a temporary contract or may be they were just the agent and she worked as a paralegal for the law firm instead. This is part of the problem of using paralegals at all - they are not trainee solicitors, they have not passed all their law exams, they have not necessarily done an exams in professional conduct. This move to lots of paralegals is not necessarily a good thing.

She was obviously holding onto the laptop to try and leverage it in the hope of securing some form of settlement in this employment claim. I imagine she's going to get hit with the majority of that 80K because her comments to RoF suggest that she's still not handed it back.

You don’t try and nick what they know you have. You nick the stuff everybody else has been given!

Doh

"This move to lots of paralegals is not necessarily a good thing."

Don't be absurd Lydia, without Paralegals the daily costs of operating the equity's sedan chairs and palanquins are simply unfeasible for most firms. With NQ rates being what they are these days, paralegals are just the only way to make it make sense.

But... but... as a silver lining to this story, I think that we might have found the ideal girlfriend for Question Man.

Judging from the transcripts I think they might really hit it off.

It seems an extraordinary amount of money, £80k to be incurred by Maitland Walker in respect of the return of a laptop. Or is the £80k in respect of other matters?

I agree with Lydia, a much easier solution would have been to ask her to get into a taxi, bring the laptop to the court and hand it over. If she didn't she would then be in contempt.

This is the difficulty when a party is unrepresented, and feels the world is against them.

Unfortunately, this article is not fair and accurate and is one-sided. I have asked the Rolls on Friday today, after they issued the article, to amend it to show the fair and correct information and by now the ROF corrected only 4 out of the 9 points reported unfairly about me and about the hearing at the CAT, and, as a result of it, you see the information slightly amended now than in the morning version. This clearly proves that the article was wrong. It is a shame that ROF provided its readers with not an accurate information and did not take any comments from Maitland Walker LLP's Julian Maitland-Walker, Adrian Render, Joseph Siman and Chris Thomas as well as from Mark Sansom and Angus Reston from Freshfields and Tom Cassel from Linklaters about negligent treatment of their client's information by Maitland Walker LLP and why the Competition Appeal Tribunal did not request any submissions from them on the issue. Give this a thought please. But I am really interested to read your thoughts as legal professionals on the situation whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal, as an agency of the Ministry of Business and Trade, have jurisdiction to order the delivery of a chattel, the laptop, which lies with the High Court.

@Maria - yes yes yes, but was it an Admiralty flag or not?

I really want to know if 11:45 is really her. Hilarious that a paralegal thought she could get away with such behaviour.

yes, @Anonymous at 12.02, it is really ME! It is strange that you gave doubt to my identity, but not to the misleading article or the judgment. Have you read the Ruling and the Transcript at all before having your say?

@Anonymous at 11.59 on 10 May 2024. What is the Admiralty flag you meant and if it is raised under the Competition Appeal Tribunal? I am not a freeman/freewoman to comment on your statement.

It is interesting that there are some many anonymous comments. And I wonder why the comments there are so many anonymous? Do you know?

Maria, just return the laptop!

Rolls on Friday, Lambo on Saturday, £80k bill on Sunday.

@force me jaw 11:38

They already advised her to bring the laptop in prior to attending the hearing, what more could they have done????

@Force me jaw 10 May 24 11:38

Yes, you are correct! About 75% of the internal correspondence of Maitland Walker LLP costs in the schedule of costs, which Maitland Walker LLP claimed for the hearing on 12 April 2024, went to their internal correspondence about the situation instead of the correspondence with me for providing a secure way for the collection of the laptop with confidential information. The Maitland Walker LLP and Flex Legal Limited had their usual contentions that their "couriers do not have IDs" and that their couriers can be recognised by a van on the streets. Would YOU pass the laptop with confidential information to someone without an ID, unauthorised and who can be only be recognised by a van on a street which is not in front of your house, as it was insisted by Maitland Walker LLP and Adrian Render, Julian Maitland-Walker and Joseph Siman, all the solicitors form Maitland Walker LLP? What do they actually train Chris Thomas, the trainee to do?

What would you do in my place? Is it a practice in your law firm for collection the IT equipment with confidential information in your law firm or the company you work at?

Don’t listen to them Maria, it’s a trap!

All these agencies offering law grads / inexperienced paralegals, they are just directories with no quality control whatsoever.

It amazes me that law firms who take pride in the quality of their services are willing to use them and apply ludicrous mark-ups to them.

What a sausage. Why are you keeping hold of the laptop. It is clearly not security reasons. Be honest! (insert David / Victoria Beckham meme here).

For anyone who would like to read the transcript and make up their own mind hopefully this rather convoluted link will work. Spolier alert - I really don't think Maria has been traduced by ROF in their report....

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2024-04/14047721%20David%20Courtney%20Boyle%20v%20Govia%20Thameslink%20Railway%20Limited%20%26%20Others%20-%20Transcript%20of%20hearing%20%2012%20Apr%202024.pdf

@Nine to five 10 May 24 13:17

thanks for attempting to read the transcript. Now why did not you give a doubt to the fact that I was not served al the Application, that I did not have any notice of injunction and joining as a party, that 3 my application, including the application to adjoin the hearing to allow me legal advice, have not been even determined by the hearing? Would you have a fair hearing in this circumstances. Would you like other people to give their opinions on the incorrect and unfair information in the media?

The comments section is starting to feel like the legal sector's version of Baby Reindeer

MS PRUZHANSKAYA: Let -- just a second. I am not a professional.

THE PRESIDENT: No, not at all.

OOOUUCH

@ Nine to five 13:17

Thanks. I found a summary of the transcript here:

https://wondermark.com/c/1062/

She’s got the right idea, hobbits.

This person has an interesting internet footprint, it would appear,

Maria, I am just struggling to understand why you consider yourself the ultimate gatekeeper of the confidential information on the laptop? You were just a paralegal doing some of the legwork in a case.

Has any other employee who has been involved in CAT work, and has subsequently left employment with a firm, ever taken this much of a point over returning a laptop?

If the firm is satisfied that returning the laptop by courier is sufficiently secure for their purposes, then that’s pretty much it - it’s at their risk and if they lose it in the process that’s their problem and they’ll have to face the music for doing so.

What I can’t get round is that this isn’t for you to decide. Give it back, satisfy the undertaking and move on?

Could you let us know, in one sentence, why are you still holding on to this laptop?

Don't you think it would have been easier to return it once your engagement on the fixed-term task concluded, rather than go through this ridiculous situation and now face a potential £80,000.00 bill (wiping out years of your net income in the process)?

Utterly bizarre.

@------------ 10 May 24 13:48

comments section is starting to feel like the legal sector's version of Baby Reindeer

True, which is very unfortunate and the reason for this is an unfair and incorrect reporting by the ROF's Director Matthew Rhodes and the Editor James Hamilton, who transpired only one side of the story and did not correct the wrong reporting even when they were pointed out to this twice. It is a very sad story, which tried to convince the reader that negligence in treating confidential information is right and not passing the laptop with confidential information to whoever on the street was a correct treatment for confidential information, while Freshfields and Linklaters responsible to treating safely confidential information belonging to Govia and the the Ministry of Transport were fully right by stepping aside and seemed not involved in the treatment of confidential information of their clients, Govia and the Ministry of Transport. Would YOU pass the laptop with confidential information to a stranger on a street, while you tried to identify him as a courier by his van, as Maitland Walker LLP and Flex Legal Limited insisted on?

@Return the laptop 10 May 24 14:40

What exactly makes you think that I did not satisfy the undertaking?

Always said paralegals are smarter than lawyers. So they think !

I bet this all felt like a really, really clever way of annoying a former employer until the £80k costs order.

A true cautionary tale for anyone considering making a nuisance of themselves after being let go by an employer in a way that bruises your sense of self: just dust yourself off, swallow your pride, and move on to better things without them. Don't be a Maria.

"Har har, I'm going to be a really clever lawyer and say it's important to delay handing my stuff back because of the confidentiality agreement! What are you going to do? Take me to court? Ho ho ho, I can't give it to a courier because he hasn't got a certified copy of an ID document! And doesn't he need to give me two documents as proof of address? As lawyers we have to be careful of the rules now, don't we? Tee hee hee.

Oh my god, what is that tearing sensation […] and why am I your debt b***h to the tune of £80k?! Who possibly could have foreseen this as a consequence?!"

Maria Pruzhanskaya 10 May 24 14:50

What makes me think? The pointless proceedings leading to a whopping costs order being made against you, about your refusal to return the laptop?

If you’ve now returned it, under the threat of breaching a court order I’m glad to hear it!

@Return the laptop 10 May 24 15:10

I understand that you are legal professional to comment it. If so, can you please point me out on the provision of the undertaking noted in the Ruling and confirm what exactly I breached, as it was not confirmed in the Ruling? As the CAT refused me the time for legal advice and said that the proper service and legal advice was not necessary for a litigant in person (as I was called) as I had a grasp of "sufficient" documents, so I hopefully can understand your professional opinion.

Have you returned the laptop Maria? (Yes or no answer only!)

This is giving Baby Reindeer vibes

Well I'm glad she did what she did. She gave us that absolutely hilarious exchange

@16:00 - Yes, agreed.

Sucks to be Maria, but if it helps her at all she's added at least £80k to the general gaiety of the nation.

Is this story real or a wind up? Surely she does not still have the laptop?! You gotta be kidding me.

Brilliant comments section.

Shame she wasnt served in advance of the hearing, but lucky she was passing and happened to drop in.

Could have bought a cracking laptop for £80k too.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.N

Maria Pruzhanskaya. You have just as much right to that confidential information as any random person plucked from the street does, so you can pack in the gatekeeping now.

The matter continues. Maria has now racked up a costs order of £1.2m and is two years through a five-year stretch at Pentonville. She still has the laptop.

I see Maria is taking the Suella approach of getting yourself out of a hole by doing some more digging.

OMG WE NEED TO KNOW HOW THE STORY ENDS! SOMEBODY CALL NETFLIX TO BRING THIS WHOPPER TO THE SILVER SCREEN! F*CK!

.... imagine her, just for a second, as your future ex-wife from hell. The legal fees, the legal fees alone...

We glanced at the papers, and seeing Jarndyce and Jarndyce everywhere, asked an official-looking person who was standing in the midst of them, whether the cause was over. "Yes," he said; "it was all up with it at last!" and burst out laughing too. ... "Excuse me, our time presses. Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?"

As there is a transcript, there is a video record. You need to ask the video records of the hearing for the case 1404/7/7/2021 on 12 April 2024 from [email protected] and you will have much more enjoyment!! You will see a hand of Ms Maloch, the barrister from Exchange Chambers who decided to provide me with a printed bundle during the hearing, which I have not received printed before and of which the judge had another version! You will see Joseph Siman from Maitland Walker LLP who forgot to collect the laptopand his reaction during the hearing! You will see Maitland Walker LLP's reaction when I told him that what he asked me to hand him, the laptop Number 21, I could not do it as I gave them this laptop 9 months ago! This is much more enjoyment to see the video of the hearing than the incorrect information provided in the article! Please let me know if you have requested the Competition Appeal Tribunal the video of the hearing and their reply!

Was it worth it Maria?

@Anonymous 10 May 24 18:32 Was it worth it Maria?

You tell me! Could you give something which you did not have?

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

No, for real though?

I think the laptop must be faulty as I can’t understand anything she’s typed

I'm completely baffled. Was there even a laptop to begin with?

Dell are getting off lightly considering they put a sticker on it saying ‘intel inside’. Blatant or what. And yet the CAT goes after the little guy

Mental !

That’s all I have to say on the matter.

Best comments in ages, esp @20:43! Thanks for the laughs.

Maria, you’re bonkers.

@Maria Pruzhanskaya

Your comments on here (if it is you) show that you've learned nothing at all even following the hearing. You ask "Would YOU pass the laptop with confidential information to someone without an ID, unauthorised and who can be only be recognised by a van on a street". Er, yes, I would (and did recently, when I left a job and that's precisely what happened). If the firm say they've arranged for a courier to collect the laptop, then a courier turns up asking for it, just hand it over and save £80K in the process.

Welcome to generation Woke. Her truth her needs and her perception of things trumps everything so far as she is concerned.

Maria;

Does the video show you being lifted by your hind legs and walked around the room like a wheelbarrow?

They metaphorically did that to you based on the transcripts but we were wondering if they did it literally.

Maria, I read the entire 40 page transcript and if that’s how you genuinely think and feel, you need to change. You need to develop capacity for reasoned thinking (for any job and professional or social environment really), your perception and interpretation of the situation is beyond irrational.

Take some time off the internet, stop doubling down by responding to comments and trying to justify yourself, you’re making it worse. Accept you wildly misjudged the situation and your course of action was misguided.

I do hope you suffer as little as possible financially (hard to tell at this stage) but please also consider getting some counselling. There might be something else behind this extraordinary level of litigiousness.

"Maria Pruzhanskaya 10 May 24 18:45

"@Anonymous 10 May 24 18:32 Was it worth it Maria?

"You tell me! Could you give something which you did not have?"

Maria, the transcript in the article quotes you as saying: "PRUZHANSKAYA: No, I will give it".

So you did (still do?) have it.

Greatest comments section ever

Maria’s LinkedIn bio says “I am skilled at making things simple.”

Enough said!

FFAS Maria just return the bloody laptop!

"Have you ever returned a laptop by courier?" Yes. Of course. Laptops tend to have this security feature these days called usernames and passwords. Your average DHL driver won't know yours unless you decide to whisper it in their ear.

It's frankly insane to trot up to a court hearing to deal with your failure to return a laptop when you say it's because you don't want to give it to a courier and not bring said laptop with you when you could give it to someone from the actual firm.

Reminds me of a bonkers litigant in person who refused to provide disclosure because of security concerns. At the hearing to address this he confirmed he did indeed have the documents with him in his bag but shredded... Bonkers.

The car crash became more serious when the car came to stop on some railway tracks and was then hit by a train. Maria, give them the feckin laptop […]

But how do we know it's really Maria here? she hasn't produced certified ID...

Why, I could be talking to frankly anyone on the internet!

This started out as a good 6/10 thread, funny comments about what you can get away with. Then Maria joined and it became a solid, rare, 10/10. Oh my life. Just give the bloody laptop back. As many have said, if they want to send a courier then it's their risk.

And then someone who may or not be the real Ayesha Vardag joined, just brilliant. Ayesha, if it is you - I really appreciate you standing by your team member who cocked up a couple of weeks ago. In all my long years I've seen too many junior team members thrown under the bus.