Have Travers got any partners left to actually conduct this review?!

Do you think Farage understands the irony of complaining he was de-banked as a result of his political views on the one hand, yet trying to get Travers Smith sacked as a result of Chris Hale's political views on the other? 

Straight out of the Trump playbook. Criticise any link of the investigator (whether actual or perceived despite the ceremonious role of a Chair) before the investigation has begun to influence its outcome or get it cancelled. Cancel my bank account? I'll cancel you. The fact that the Govn, including Rishi Rich, got involved in this debacle just shows how afraid the Westminster elite are of Farage and his agenda and how low our politicians and newspapers have swooped. The last time I checked, Coutts was a private bank (and they choose to bank with whom they want?). How did this story even get the oxygen Farage needed to turn into a furore? No one gave a crap about banks closing people's/charities' accounts without any hesitation before this. Close Farage's Coutts account, feel Farage's wrath.

In fairness to him, the legal profession is usually pretty hot on complaining about the appearance of bias and we don't tend to think of Lord Hoffman as having set a bad precedent in Amnesty International.

If this were any other appointment to investigate a set of facts with a strong political angle we'd probably be quite sympathetic to this kind of objection. For example, I doubt anyone in polite society would be giving an All Above Board nod to an oil company appointing a US firm to do a review into their ethical practices whose 'Chair Emeritus' had widely published his views in the press while billing himself as a "pro-oil lawyer" and whose views were essentially "drill baby drill". It would be far better, given that this is a story which is inherently about ideological capture and institutional blindness, for NatWest to have found an advisor that couldn't be so obviously accused of having fallen victim to the same issue that NatWest appears to have (ironically, that is probably a US firm).

But I suspect that a number of midwits here are about to suspend their usual enthusiasm for due process and transparency because of who the story is about. So we'll get the usual polarised spasm of name-calling and theatrical pretences that they can't see the issue; as if they wouldn't be outraged if this set of facts were reversed.

Good god, I am sick of the torrent of effluent that emanates from this asshat. Why doesn't he go back to fellating US conservative pundits live on Fox News for a bit? Have we not listened to enough of his shit for one lifetime?

Are NatWest or any other bank going to hire a law firm to investigate why thousands of other bank accounts are closed? No. 

Why is anyone in the media, or the banking industry wasting time on a guy that hates the idea of the UK being in Europe, but spends a lot of his time there?

Tired of listening to this moaning faced sock puppet miserable excuse of DNA.

"Good god, I am sick of the torrent of effluent that emanates from this asshat. Why doesn't he go back to fellating US conservative pundits live on Fox News for a bit? Have we not listened to enough of his shit for one lifetime?"

... and there's that polarised spasm of name-calling and theatrical pretences. Right on schedule.

Obviously this chap would be saying the same thing on a story where the facts went the other way.

So I'm sure he was equally scathing of people who, say, accused the BBC Chairman of having links to the Conservative Party that were too strong/direct to enable him to give the appearance of neutrality, irrespective of whether any of his actual actions indicated a lack of it.

He's definitely not just having a rationality blackout, losing sight of the facts of the story, and regressing to mad ranting and raving because he saw the word 'Farage' and immediately lost his grip on critical thinking as part of some weird Pavlovian response.

Natwest treated Farage outrageously.  The CEO of a major bank violated his privacy and told lies to a BBC journalist at a dinner party.  She then followed up to confirm the story afterwards.  This was pure malice, arrogance and incompetence.  The CEO should never work in banking again.  If there is a Senior Managers' regime, it is for this category of conduct.  This is not an autistic trader submitting Libor like every other banker was doing for years; it's the CEO violating the cardinal commandment of banking. I don't ever want to live in a society where political views are the subject of punishment.  I think most liberal and fair-minded Brits feel the same way. 

As for Travers Smith, I was always taught that real lawyers pretend they have no opinions.  Nowadays, it's more like real lawyers pretend they have no vaguely conservative opinions.  This is the best publicity they've had in months.

"The last time I checked, Coutts was a private bank (and they choose to bank with whom they want?)."

Yes, that's normally what we say about private companies and their right to discriminate against people based on their views, isn't it?

It's definitely not something we only think when it's Nigel Farage. Our usual opinion is that we think of anti-discrimination obligations as a tool of the far-right. Definitely.

We're being totally rational here and not losing our minds because of our personal views about the individual at the heart of the story.

"How did this story even get the oxygen Farage needed to turn into a furore? No one gave a crap about banks closing people's/charities' accounts without any hesitation before this."

I know, right? It's almost as if people were unaware that the banks were withdrawing a service critical for the living of everyday life from people simply because those people didn't share their ideological views.

Why can't they just go back to not caring about the issue like they did before someone with a media platform made them aware?

Can't something be done to just make the little people ignore things that their betters don't want them to take issue with? I mean, nobody is cancelling my bank account, so what's the problem here?

He's such an absolute gimp.

Scratch that; that's an insult to perfectly good gimps the world over.

"Why is anyone in the media, or the banking industry wasting time on a guy that hates the idea of the UK being in Europe, but spends a lot of his time there?"

Is that fact one that's particularly relevant to a story about the behaviour of one of the UK's largest banks' CEO and its corporate behaviour more generally?

If Nigel Farage spent most of his time in, say, Surrey would it tremendously change the amount of media time that you felt this story deserved?

Man shrieking about being silenced/cancelled for his political views, tries to silence/cancel an entire law because of the historical political views of one of its consultants (who used to do M&A, so presumably would have nothing to do with the investigation anyway). Classic.

If Travers want to step down from this, we at Keoghs will gladly step up here and carry out this investigation for a fixed fee. How does £250 plus vat and disbs sound?

Were Travers Smith eyeing their fees too much and didn't understand they were about to stumble into this mess?? It is as if they really wanted to be roasted.

Please ignore BoltonBoy, Keoghs are a opportunistic carpetbaggers who have no ability to actually perform this work if selected in a competitive tender.

We at Freeths, on the other hand, would be very happy to take over where Travers have failed. Which we're willing to do for a fixed fee of £245 plus vat.

If it helps your ESG assessment of potential service providers I can assure you that our operations are carbon neutral because all of our firm's corporate travel takes place by riding on Triceratops.

We can even receive instructions by fax and telex.

Mr. Farage: next time let’s try to appoint a white-shoe US Law Firm: Trump supporters and better paid associates. You’ll get the results that you deserve.

NatWest appoint Travers Smith to “investigate” their conduct. NatWest are a big client of Travers Smith. The conflicts are obvious. 
 

It is just like when NatWest (formerly called RBS), appointed Clifford chance in 2018 to “investigate” whether RBS had badly treated small companies in financial difficulties and had been taking steps to accelerate their insolvency, to the benefit of the restructuring arm of RBS. Oh, by the way, Clifford Chances biggest client in several of the previous years had been - that’s right, RBS! The allegation was then that Clifford Chance had overlooked obvious fraud by RBS. The SRA looked into this but then decided not to take any action.

Go figure…

AllMates, the Clifford Chance investigation was earlier than 2018, it was in 2018 that the SRA got involved as there had been complaints they had been part of the cover up for yes, let’s face it, their biggest client. 

The SRA do not have the sophistication to take on a firn like Clifford Chance and they let it all pass. It’s like putting the office junior against a KC in the high court.
 

The SRA should be getting involved now and asking Travers if they think there are conflicts perceptions that should mean another firm is better placed to handle this as this case is so high profile. There should be a process where a firm is selected by someone independent, like an arbitrator, not by the bank under investigation! It all looks like a stitch up because it probably is. 
 

The SRA will instead focus on the High Street conveyancing firms and junior lawyers whose firms have already thrown them under the bus. 

15th May 2023 - Nigel Farage, on live television, admits that ‘Brexit has failed. We’ve mismanaged it totally’.

3rd August 2023 - Nigel Farage claims Chris Hale can’t be impartial because he had previously warned that Brexit would fail and couldn’t be properly implemented.

Seems like he’s given up trying to appeal to disaffected bigots and now specialises in only trying to appeal to people who can’t read, think or remember what he said last week. Progress of sorts, I suppose.

I don’t know about what relationships exist between Travers Smith and NatWest but agree it is quite ridiculous that the bank pick who investigates them. Either have a proper open investigation by someone independent and not picked by you, or don't bother. There is no way an establishment firm like Travers should be hand picked by an establishment bank like NatWest to investigate them. It is contrary to natural justice and looks so bad to everyone so that even if its conclusions are perfectly rational and fair, there is no trust it was all legitimate. 
 

If there had been such serious allegations made against, let’s say, a trainee in a High Street firm. Would he or she be allowed to pick a friend to investigate? 
 

Ignore the offerings from Keoghs and Freeths above. Obviously the Golden Turd winner should get this gig and we will get the job done on a no win no fee agreement. Just give us a minute to figure out how we will define a win though on this one...

I actually think Nigel is quite sexy. 

Is it true that Clifford Chance were a huge client of RBS/Natwest, and then got appointed to investigate them on allegations of fraud ? How is that allowed?? 
 

And now the same happens for Natwest again, they hand pick who investigates them on more serious matters and pick Travers? 

Shouldn’t the SRA get involved and properly look into these “investigations” and the many others that don’t hit the headlines? This all looks terrible and the profession is being brought into disrepute as many both within and outside the profession think they are part of a stitch up and where privilege looks out for privilege and it looks like white wash investigations have taken place. There is no way a firm like Clifford Chance is going to issue a report confirming there has been fraud within its biggest client! The best you will ever get will be some acknowledgment of “mistakes” but nothing that causes too much trouble for their client….

Isn’t this sort of structural conduct more important than the troubled trainee leaving a briefcase on the train and then lying about it in a panic? Come on SRA, step forward publicly and tell the London firms to take conflicts seriously and stop taking us all for fools. 

If anyone ever accuses me of misconduct, I am going to appoint my good mate Tom to investigate. He is dating my sister. We have been buddies since junior school. But he says he can be independent and does not see any conflicts. Is that ok, SRA? 

Does Far-rage seriously think that the political views of one lawyer in a firm will influence the outcome?  Perhaps he assumes law firms are ran like a political party.  Although his party is actually a company – check it out.

Nigel is part of the establishment.  Brexit is the Establishment viewpoint in the UK.  Hilarious how he thinks he isn’t part of the Establishment, as if he was on benefits and living in a tower block.  Oppression Olympics posturing off the scale here.

'Establishment' legal firm. Lolololol

Farage has red flags coming out of his Ahh, Walter

Anon 04 August 23 13:08

Good point. They should let Nigel choose.

"Nigel is part of the establishment.  Brexit is the Establishment viewpoint in the UK."

... up is down! Black is white! War is peace! London's status as the most heavily Remain-voting constituency in the UK is to be disregarded! 

Ignore everything that Remainers told you over the last seven years about how all of the well-informed professionals, and all the 'experts' of every professional body, and everyone with money who owned a business, were all Remain voters. And how you were a stupid thicky prole who belonged in the North if you didn't agree with them.

No, you now have to tell yourself that those people aren't the establishment anymore, and that Remainers are not in fact overwhelmingly well represented across the ranks of the UK's most wealthy opinion forming classes. The truth is now that those people have somehow become the downtrodden outsiders (despite giving up none of their wealth or influence) and you have to tell yourself that they no longer represent the UK's Establishment irrespective of the Establishment stitch-up that you're watching unfold in front of your very eyes.

MyMate, point well made. 

Law firms don’t only handle investigations for banks and companies outside the profession, but also for other law firms who face misconduct allegations. I used to work in a London firm focussed on malpractice and defending other big law firms. It goes like this:

there is an allegation made that someone senior in a big law firm has been guilty of misconduct;

that law firm appoints another law firm, with whom they have a relationship, to “investigate”; 

the senior partner from the law firm which has faced the allegations calls up its “relationship manager” from the SRA (all big London firms have such a person designated to them) and that relationship manager that his firm takes these allegations very seriously and has appointed an “independent” law firm to look into the allegations urgently and SRA should await the findings; 

the investigating law firm then “investigates” and confirms they have done so but that there is “no evidence” of misconduct - perhaps they will confirm there are some mistakes or oversights made, enough to try and convince they are independent and keep some credibility, but nothing that will cause any real trouble however - often the investigating law firm will pretty much duplicate and confirm the pre ordained “conclusions” of the investigated firm; the phrase “no evidence” of misconduct will ALWAYS be used, because the investigating law firm will only ever look at what it is given and will only ever speak to witnesses that have been pre approved by and put to them by, the investigated law firm;

the investigated law firm will then tell the SRA that everything has been looked into “independently” and there has been no misconduct;

the SRA will just accept what they are told, doff their caps and apologise to the investigated law firm for troubling them; the investigated law firm will pat them on the head and tell them to run along now and play; 

the investigating law firm gets its big fee.

It happens a lot more often than you might think because cases are closed before they ever become public. It’s a scandal. 

Surprised he hasn’t mentioned Travers’ blind loyalty to the Stonewall way.  So foolish for law firms to pick a side in an increasingly fraught area and expect to maintain their reputation for unbiased advice and fair treatment of clients.  

There is obviously a London Establishment and they will close ranks to protect NatWest, the CEO, Howard Davis etc.  The main City solicitors all know each other and the major banks, insurers etc. they all look after each other and their children. The dirty secret in legal London is that amongst the English firms class diversity is as big an issue as racial diversity. US firms have lots of problems (toxicity) but they are far more meritocratic. 

The NatWest executives could have stripped naked, painted themselves in blue Euro paint and chased Farage whilst shrieking “Rejoin” through the City and chucking spears and axes at him. Travers’ “investigation” would conclude there had been “some errors of judgement” but no “misconduct”. And that Farage had brought it upon himself. Probably. 

Would the media please stop covering Farage. Just ignore him. He's done enough damage for one lifetime.  

Suck it up woke lefties. 

Hush Remoaner@ 2157. Embrace the will of the people and accept we are out ! 

One of them is highly regarded, thoroughly decent, and has contributed to the development of a respected business.

The other is a serial whiner with a megaphone.  

Anon 5 Aug 9.37 - okay we are out.  We don't have to celebrate our own stupidity.  

Damn good lawyer is Trevor Smith. 

Can’t stand Farage but he is not wrong here, about Travers Smith or the conduct of Nat West. Would pp be ok if banks were closing bank accounts on the basis of gender critical (i.e belief in reality) views? 

When reviewing whether a conflict exists, the only pertinent question is “how big is the fee?”

This will dictate the outcome of any conflict check.

The unsophisticated SRA will do nothing, even where a blatant conflict exists.  
 

Certain larger firms get away with it time and again.  And nothing ever changes. 

Always great to see a panel firm marking their client’s homework, whilst claiming independence.

The very significant fees paid to TS over the last 3 years (and the fees to be paid in the next 3 years), will have absolutely no impact on its “independence”.

Whilst the SRA may be habitually taken for fools, Farrage, the general public and the profession, see right through this nonsense.