Just one comment on the attempt by the chambers to keep the court proceedings secret. It Is somewhat ironic in the light of the strapline on the chambers website: "TRANSPARENT LEGAL ADVICE AND REPRESENTATION"
What explanation did the auditors provide for not noticing the missing money? If the defalcations were of a false/or padded expense type why did the budgetary controls not flag the overspends? Etc.,etc?
Just one comment on the attempt by the chambers to keep the court proceedings secret. It Is somewhat ironic in the light of the strapline on the chambers website: "TRANSPARENT LEGAL ADVICE AND REPRESENTATION"
What explanation did the auditors provide for not noticing the missing money? If the defalcations were of a false/or padded expense type why did the budgetary controls not flag the overspends? Etc.,etc?
As I say, lots of questions. Best not to spread any accusations around, in my view.
Too much money.
Sorry; mangled prose now corrected.
I think Joshua in his closing remark is right. I add only that there are likely to be several, as yet unpublicised, layers to this particular onion.