header-logo header-logo

‘Burn it’ solicitor escapes prison

07 October 2022
Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Contempt
printer mail-detail
City solicitor Raymond McKeeve has been given a £25,000 fine and ordered to pay £610,000 costs but escaped prison after allegedly telling a client to ‘burn’ evidence.

The former Jones Day partner was found in contempt of court last year for intentionally causing the destruction of an encrypted communication system despite there being a court order in place to preserve the evidence. The e-data belonged to McKeeve’s client, Today Development Partners, which was set up by a co-founder of Ocado. There was at the time an ongoing legal dispute between Ocado and the former co-founder over alleged misuse of confidential information, which has since been settled.

McKeeve told the court that he panicked and instructed an IT manager to ‘burn it’.

Sentencing McKeeve this week, Mr Justice Adam Johnson called McKeeve’s conduct a ‘spontaneous act of colossal stupidity’.

Johnson J said: ‘This is plainly a serious matter but not of such character as to warrant a custodial sentence.’

Deborah Ruff, head of international arbitration at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said: ‘While the circumstances of this case were unusual—criminal proceedings and relating to a search order—and dramatic, it is a salutary reminder of the more mundane disclosure processes which are part of most litigation in England and Wales as well as in other common law jurisdictions.

‘Mr McKeeve will be breathing a huge sigh of relief that a custodial sentence wasn’t handed down, despite the judge having felt a “strong initial impulse towards” imposing one. This case should serve as a reminder to all lawyers of the importance of complying with—and urging their clients to have in place and comply with—document retention policies, as well as regulations and legislation governing document retention.

‘Businesses must also have suitable and robust document creation, circulation and retention policies in place.

‘In the age of emails and instant messaging services, it is very easy to say things with no thought of them being read and used in a court of law. It’s equally easy to forget the duty to preserve them when a dispute is in prospect or underway or the penalties and reputational damage if they are destroyed or not disclosed when this is obligatory. Doing so could have very serious consequences.’

Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Contempt
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll