Barristers’ chambers defrauded by £2.75 million

A former credit control manager at a top London barristers’ chambers stole money to the tune of £2.75 million, while responsible for the bank account used to pay fees due to barristers.

After she left her role in June this year, Gillian Goodfield, also known as Gillian Brown, was suspected of having stolen the money over a period of five years.

Following her departure from the Chambers, she has acknowledged her wrongdoing in writing and says she bitterly regrets it.

Initially, Pump Court Chambers (PCC) was granted proprietary and freezing injunctions at an earlier hearing in respect of the money it said had been wrongfully taken by Mrs Goodfield.

The case was heard in private and the chambers was also granted an anonymity order.

However, at a later hearing presided over by a different High Court Judge, the Judge decided that the matter should be made public, saying that while publicity “may be an inconvenience, perhaps even a severe distraction,” there was no justification for a private High Court hearing.”

PCC’s website says ‘Chambers has discovered it has been the victim of a fraud by a former member of staff.

This fraud took place some time ago and did not impact upon the operational running of chambers.’

The statement goes on to say that, as the matter is now in the hands of the police, PCC was unable to comment further.

Theft on such a grand scale by a member of staff poses huge reputational threats to any business and it is likely that PCC will do all it can to strengthen its processes to ensure such a thing does not happen again.

Roger Isaacs, Forensic Partner at Milsted Langdon, said: “It is hard to think of a more litigious group of people than those at the Bar and one can therefore only imagine how heated discussions may have been as to whether the cost of the fraud should be borne by the chambers itself or the individual barristers.

“A forensic accountancy examination might well have been undertaken in an attempt to identify whether the funds that were stolen could be linked to bills raised in relation to the work of specific barristers.  However, that might only have been part of the story. 

“No doubt the specific contractual terms that govern the relationship between Pump Court and its members will have been relevant as would the common law duties of care that a chambers owes to its members as regards the administrative functions including invoicing and debt collection.”

Sources: Evening Standard

Posted in Blog, The Forensic Blog.