Proceedings against A&O partner stayed

Mansell has staunchly denied any wrongdoing.

The SRA took the view that, in the context of a serious allegation of sexual assault, a solicitor acting for an employer was guilty of misconduct because the settlement agreement included a non-disclosure agreement which might be understood to restrict the complainant’s ability to report the alleged crime to the police, co-operate fully with criminal proceedings and obtain medical treatment.

The settlement concerned claims made by two individuals, A and B, against a company, Y, and an individual, X. B made an allegation against X of sexual assault or attempted rape outside the UK.

John Gould, senior partner, Russell-Cooke, who acted for Mansell, said: ‘Our client is a senior and highly respected solicitor with an unblemished 30-year professional career.

‘Our client (and his firm) represented X and company Y on this single occasion, more than 20 years ago, when there were no wider allegations against X. Our client is and remains of the view that the proceedings are misconceived and should never have been brought.’

Gould said: ‘The principles of the settlement deal were agreed before our client was involved; he was brought in simply to document it, on the basis that the allegations were untrue and was given proper reasons why confidentiality had already been agreed as a component.

‘A and B were represented throughout by English solicitors, an English barrister and a US attorney.

‘It is not disputed that our client did not propose the now-controversial wording; his position is that it came from A and B’s lawyers. The SRA decided not to take action against A and B’s solicitors and none of the other lawyers involved have been subjected to disciplinary action by their regulators.

‘It has never been alleged that our client acted oppressively or improperly towards A or B. Our client’s position is that, properly construed, the agreement did not prevent a report to the police, cooperation with criminal proceedings or the obtaining of medical treatment. There is no suggestion that any of the many lawyers involved at the time (including those advising A and B) disagreed.’