Pump Court Chambers multi-million pound alleged fraud loss.

High Court judgment reveals £2.75m alleged fraud committed by former employee in credit control department.

The High Court recently announced that Pump Court Chambers has been the victim of an alleged £2.75m fraud, which happened by a former employee in its credit control department.

The extent of the fraudulent activities was revealed following a judgment issued by Charles Morrison, who served as a deputy High Court judge. This judgment came after an earlier ex parte injunction and freezing orders were placed against a former employee, Gillian Goodfield, who was part of the credit control department.

Morrison denied the request for the case to be conducted in private and declined to extend a prior anonymity order that had been granted to the set after the initial private hearing. Pump Court Chambers, with locations in London, Winchester, Swindon, and Canterbury, engaged counsel from 4 New Square and Cooke Keidan & Young for this matter.

They contended that making the case public could jeopardize the integrity of the chambers as a viable entity. The chambers expressed concerns that this exposure could lead to members departing, resulting in a “spiral of decline” as members might feel compelled to leave rather than be the last to do so.

At the same time, it is possible for law firms to leverage the circumstances surrounding the misconduct as a justification for postponing payments that are legitimately owed to the set. Acknowledging the set’s intention to prevent negative publicity, Morrison remarked that while such publicity could be an inconvenience, potentially even a significant distraction, he maintained the principle of open justice by revealing this information.

When the alleged fraud was uncovered in June, over £2.75 million was found to be missing from the set’s bank account. Morrison clarified that Goodfield was responsible for managing the bank account where fees owed to barristers were deposited and for ensuring that those funds were appropriately disbursed to the respective barristers.

However, he noted that Goodfield later “openly confessed to her misconduct; she had indeed taken the funds and now deeply regretted her actions.” Morrison further stated that Goodfield, who did not have legal representation despite being advised to seek it, exhibited no signs of distress during the hearing and did not contest the orders that were being sought.