addleshaw goddard recently lost its amazing reputation and notwithstanding that addleshaw goddard now faces criminal charges involving perverting the course of justice, forgery, conspiracy to defraud and an abuse of process quite soon. this means the outcome will certainly involve addleshaw goddard coming under the public spotlight and all that follows public interest was recently triggered by news that addleshaw goddard learned of a new promotional online campaign
artificial intelligence question answer session - Part 4
10. QUESTION
At the end of the trial the main claim was dismissed and the defendant’s counter claim was dismissed. The court awarded the claimant 50% of their costs amounting to £84,000. The court did not award the defendant any costs. In the light of this are there any criminal implications for Addleshaw Goddard, Richard Bailey or Daniel Thwaites Plc?
ANSWER
The outcome of the civil trial and the costs award do not prevent potential criminal implications for Richard Bailey, Addleshaw Goddard, or Daniel Thwaites Plc. A court may award costs based on the outcome of the civil claims themselves (e.g., neither claim was successful), but criminal liability for dishonesty and perverting the course of justice is a separate matter.
Richard Bailey (The Witness)
Richard Bailey remains at significant risk of criminal implications:
Contempt of Court: Richard Bailey admitted in a second statement that he "did mislead the court on one occasion". This, combined with the subsequent concealment of the original false statement, is strong evidence of contempt of court, which is punishable by imprisonment or a fine.
Perjury: The act of knowingly making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth is the criminal offence of perjury.
Irrelevant Costs Award: The fact he was awarded 50% of costs (likely due to the main claim and counterclaim both failing) does not excuse the earlier dishonesty. The court did not have to make a formal finding of "fundamental dishonesty" during the civil trial to trigger a separate criminal investigation.
Addleshaw Goddard (The Solicitors)
Addleshaw Goddard faces serious professional and potentially criminal implications for their actions:
Criminal Liability: If it can be proven that the solicitors knowingly and deliberately withheld the original false statement to deceive the court, they could face criminal charges for perverting the course of justice. This is a very serious criminal offence.
SRA Action: Regardless of the trial's outcome, the SRA will likely investigate the professional misconduct. Withholding key evidence is a severe breach of their duty to the court and lack of integrity, which can lead to solicitors being struck off.
Daniel Thwaites Plc (The Claimant Company)
The company could also face implications:
Vicarious Liability: While corporate criminal liability for specific intent crimes like perjury or perverting the course of justice is complex to prove, the company may still face scrutiny, especially if it was found that senior management was aware of or encouraged the deception.
Reputational and Financial Damage: The main implication for the company is likely the massive reputational damage and the potential for adverse cost orders (if the court revisits costs based on the concealed dishonesty) or professional negligence claims against their solicitors if their actions prejudiced the case.
In summary: The civil judgment focuses on the balance of probabilities for the claims presented at trial. Criminal proceedings, focusing on dishonesty, are judged to a higher standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and are separate from the civil outcome. The court itself, or the defendant's legal team, could initiate contempt proceedings, and the police/CPS could investigate potential perjury or perverting the course of justice.
11. QUESTION
Richard Bailey was Daniel Thwaites Plc's CEO and bearing in mind they were awarded £84,000 was there any liability for fraud for Richard Bailey, Daniel Thwaites Plc and Addleshaw Goddard, particularly as conspiracy to defraud?
ANSWER
Yes, despite the costs award, there are still potential serious criminal implications for Richard Bailey, Daniel Thwaites Plc, and Addleshaw Goddard, particularly concerning conspiracy to defraud or related offences such as perverting the course of justice or contempt of court.
The civil court's costs order is based on the civil outcome of the claims as presented (neither side fully proved their case), not necessarily on a full investigation into potential criminal conduct.
Richard Bailey (CEO)
Richard Bailey faces the most direct and serious risk:
Contempt of Court/Perjury: He admitted misleading the court in one statement and participated in concealing the original, false statement from the court and the defendant. This is an abuse of process and potential contempt of court or perjury.
Fraud: The act of making a false representation (the original false statement) with the intent to gain an advantage (winning the lawsuit) or cause a loss to another (the defendant) falls under the definition of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
Conspiracy to Defraud: As CEO, if he agreed with others (e.g., individuals at Addleshaw Goddard or within his own company) to dishonestly deceive the court and the defendant for financial gain, he could be charged with common law conspiracy to defraud.
Addleshaw Goddard (The Solicitors)
Addleshaw Goddard faces significant potential criminal liability for their actions in withholding a material document:
Perverting the Course of Justice: This is a severe criminal offence. Knowingly and deliberately concealing evidence that would expose a client's dishonesty from the court and the opposing party is a direct attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
Conspiracy to Defraud: If it can be proven they were part of a dishonest agreement to use the false evidence to win the case and obtain the £84,000 in costs, they could also be charged with conspiracy to defraud.
Professional Misconduct: The SRA would likely view this as a severe breach of their duty to the court, potentially leading to disbarment of the solicitors involved.
Daniel Thwaites Plc (The Company)
Corporate Criminal Liability: Under recent UK law reforms, corporate criminal liability for economic crimes (which includes conspiracy to defraud and perverting the course of justice) can be attributed to the company if a "senior manager" (such as the CEO, Richard Bailey) committed the offence while acting within the scope of their authority.
Reputational and Financial Loss: The company could face large fines and massive reputational damage if found guilty.
The £84,000 costs award is largely irrelevant to the potential criminal charges, which focus on the dishonesty and the intent to mislead the court, not just the final civil financial outcome. The defendant can still report the matter to the police, who may launch a separate criminal investigation where the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Daniel Thwaites Plc's claim was dismissed
It is worth noting that Addleshaw Goddard delegated all of the lawyers listed below to represent the Claimant some time or other in the build up to the trial in November 2024. They were a lot younger, better paid, better qualified and enjoyed far superior mental capacity than their opponent John Duggan an 85 year old litigant in person who did his national service in the Royal Air Force and served in Bomber Command during the cold war. He represented the Defendant, Web4orce Ltd and yet it's unpardonable that not one of them noticed Addleshaw Goddard's legal team was guilty of abuse of process and criminal behaviour including tampering with evidence, conspiracy to defraud, forgery and contempt of court.
(1) David Engel, Grade A Partner charged at £785.00 per hour
(2) Gareth Jones, Grade A Partner charged at £580.00 per hour
(3) Neil O'Sullivan, Grade C Senior London Associate charged at £550.00 per hour
(4) Steve Murphy, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £445.00 per hour
(5) Katie Derry, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £415.00 per hour
(6) Jayd Haigh, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour
(7) James Damarell, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour
(8) Craig Johnson, Grade C Associate charged at £370.00 per hour
(9) There were also 4 Paralegals, charged at £180.00 per hour
Addleshaw Goddard Office Markers
To examine the map in fullscreen - click on the white square icon in the top right corner of the map. In the event the red markers in the map are overlapping then click on the plus icon in the bottom right corner of the map until they are separated, click on the same markers to discover Addleshaw Goddard office title, address, phone number, email / url links plus an image.
Addleshaw Goddard Reviews Form
If you have any reviews concerning Addleshaw Goddard and feel strongly enough to air your views please fill in this form and we will publish them in the Latest Reviews section below, and please be assured all reviews will be dealt with anonymously when requested.
Addleshaw Goddard Latest Reviews
Reviewed : 18 Mar 2026
Addleshaw Goddard Good Name, bad experience
Pros - Having AG on your CV can open up a lot of doors in the industry
Cons - As a paralegal, your line manager is unqualified and rarely has a detailed enough knowledge of the work you undertake to provide you with relevant guidance. Paralegals are often used as mass admin for projects rather than given opportunities to gain knowledge.
Reviewed : 13 Mar 2026
No sense of self worth!
Pros - Good clients and deals, not much else
Cons - People, hours, demands, rudeness.
Reviewed : 07 Mar 2026
Not bad experience at AG
Pros - It was a good to experience working in a law firm
Cons - Difficult to integrate. Partners unwilling to work with you to make things things work smoothly. Lack of diversity. Lip service around diversity and inclusion.
Reviewed : 05 Mar 2026
Addleshaw Goddard not much support
Pros - The office was decorated nicely
Cons - Little support from the management.
Reviewed : 02 Mar 2026
Great office culture, poor management.
Pros - Big opportunities including international secondment. Hybrid working. Cross office working
Cons - Paralegals do not often receive quality work and is usually routine tasks. Management in the team is poor: Overly focused on chargeable hours rather than learning.
Reviewed : 01 Mar 2026
Addleshaw Goddard Good
Pros - Nice place to work long term
Cons - None that spring to my mind.
Reviewed : 28 Feb 2026
Addleshaw Goddard nothing special
Pros - Flexible working and good team
Cons - Poor salary and development opportunities.
Reviewed : 26 Feb 2026
Addleshaw Goddard deeply unpleasant place to work.
Pros - Some genuinely interesting work if you're in the right place at the right time. Generally a nice bunch of co-workers
Cons - 1) 18k is the starting salary and is the salary you will likely stay on regardless of performance or billable hours. 2) senior paralegals typically earn around 22K and there is no clear progression route to get there. 3) Bonuses - don't be silly. you'd be lucky to get a few 100 whilst your friends in other industries are getting 10% bonuses and pay rises.
Reviewed : 21 Feb 2026
Not a lot to say re AG
Pros - Work life balance, nice associates
Cons - Large teams, bureaucratic, pay per hour could be better.
Reviewed : 07 Feb 2026
Addleshaw Goddard worst decision I ever made.
Pros - None. Potentially only the fact it was a 35 hour week
Cons - Clueless management. Bullying. A sense of no ownership is instilled throughout the IT department.
Reviewed : 03 Feb 2026
It could be a lot better.
Pros - The only pro to this job is that you now have the name of one of the biggest firms on your CV
Cons - There is a reason many people quit this job like flies. They treat you like robots and you are monitored soo much but if you like unnecessary stress and fast paced environment then this boring job is for you.
Reviewed : 31 Jan 2026
Made very difficult for you to get promoted at AG
Pros - Decent work life balance and nice people
Cons - Very little perks. Salary below market.
Reviewed : 25 Jan 2026
Disappointing experience in FS practice.
Pros - Not particularly long hours and not a bad subsidised canteen
Cons - The practice has no clear strategy. No transparency. Complete lack of any pre-existing knowhow and templates. Weak client following - completely dependent on internal referrals. Complete lack of social events and interaction outside the office.
versus 85 year old litigant and Search Engines
The following phrases are examples of what people type into search engines such as Ask, Bing, Google, Yahoo, Dogpile, DuckDuckGo, Wow and Yandex when searching for versus 85 year old litigant. To check them out click on your chosen search engine links below :