laudrup11 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't see that as being relevant. My point is mate they have SPL as clients and have done for a number of years they were going to obviuos choice to represent them if this goes the distance. If imo it came down to who they'd rather represent if there was a conflict of interests they'd choose the SPL as they are the bigger client Harper MacLeod will be nothing other than professional in this, people are making to much of them having Celtic as clients, They represent Barry Ferguson and several other Rangers stars from the past as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 My point is mate they have SPL as clients and have done for a number of years they were going to obviuos choice to represent them if this goes the distance. If imo it came down to who they'd rather represent if there was a conflict of interests they'd choose the SPL as they are the bigger client Harper MacLeod will be nothing other than professional in this, people are making to much of them having Celtic as clients, They represent Barry Ferguson and several other Rangers stars from the past as well. If they have Celtic as clients then they should not take the investigation. They can continue to represent the SPL on other issues and Celtic if they so wish, but there is a conflict of interest in this case. Whether they believe that they will act independently is not relevant. they are not performing the normal duty of lawyers and acting confidentialy for their clients. They are investigating a third party, the impact of which could benefit a client of theirs. They have a responsibility to give the appearance of impartiality and they have failed on this already. There are plenty of other lawyer firms that represent neither side of the old firm and they could perform this instead. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laudrup11 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If they have Celtic as clients then they should not take the investigation. They can continue to represent the SPL on other issues and Celtic if they so wish, but there is a conflict of interest in this case. Whether they believe that they will act independently is not relevant. they are not performing the normal duty of lawyers and acting confidentialy for their clients. They are investigating a third party, the impact of which could benefit a client of theirs. They have a responsibility to give the appearance of impartiality and they have failed on this already. There are plenty of other lawyer firms that represent neither side of the old firm and they could perform this instead. My point is though if they had to drop a client to avoid conflict of interest it would be Celtic they dropped SPL is the bigger client I am not saying this is an ideal situation because it isnt, but my own take on events is Harper MacLeod have only done what any firm would act on the instructions of their clients 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 My point is though if they had to drop a client to avoid conflict of interest it would be Celtic they dropped SPL is the bigger client I am not saying this is an ideal situation because it isnt, but my own take on events is Harper MacLeod have only done what any firm would act on the instructions of their clients They should not be dropping any clients. Solicitors should examine whether there is any potential conflict of interest before accepting any case, and therefore I'd suggest that Harper McLeod have not done what other firms would have done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laudrup11 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 They should not be dropping any clients. Solicitors should examine whether there is any potential conflict of interest before accepting any case, and therefore I'd suggest that Harper McLeod have not done what other firms would have done. We'll agree to disagree on this mate 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 We'll agree to disagree on this mate Agreed. I can see your argument and perhaps under different circumstances I may take a different view, but I'll admit to not being 100% unbiased. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't see that as being relevant. I see it as rather curious though. With different lawyers working together, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that client confidentiality could easily be breached. eg. cfc colluding with spl over a common "problem"....us ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.