A significant ruling has been made as Judge Cawson expressed apprehension about the independence of a law firm’s administrator, leading to a reconsideration of their fees.
His Honour Judge Cawson has set aside his previous order for the payment of a law firm’s administrator due to newfound evidence that raised concerns about the impartiality of the decision. While not making a definitive judgment on the conduct of Steven Wiseglass, a director at Inquesta Ltd, the judge acknowledged the presence of credible evidence suggesting that Mr Wiseglass may have acted with unwarranted leniency towards the law firm’s owner, Mr Michael Taylor, thereby questioning the appropriateness of his actions in the given circumstances.
Appointed in November 2021, Mr Wiseglass served as the administrator for MTA Personal Injury Solicitors but was replaced by Sean Bucknell and Andrew Hosking from Quantuma in January 2023. The transition followed the closure of MTA, which resulted from its inability to secure a buyer, subsequently leading to the distribution of its files across five firms.
Complications arose when Mr Wiseglass applied for remuneration, seeking £40,000 in pre-administration costs and nearly £120,000 in fees as administrator. However, in April 2023, Judge Cawson reduced this claim significantly due to a lack of detailed justification for these fees, which breached regulatory guidelines.
Quantuma later challenged the order, citing Mr Wiseglass’s apparent closeness to Mr Taylor, either in fact or perception, as a reason for his unsuitability for the position. Despite these concerns, the judge did not see sufficient reason to alter the pre-appointment costs but expressed significant unease regarding the administrator’s potential lack of transparency during his tenure.
In his remarks, Judge Cawson expressed that there was a notable absence of clarity regarding what actions Mr Wiseglass undertook as the administrator, particularly concerning the investigation of Mr Taylor’s financial obligations to the partnership. As a result, the Judge ordered the previous remuneration decision to be set aside pending a detailed assessment.
If Mr Wiseglass intends to pursue his claims for remuneration, he must engage in this assessment process and return the funds to the administrators, according to the court’s directives.
The case underscores the critical importance of transparency and independence in administrative roles within law firms, prompting legal professionals to scrutinise the affiliations of those in power.
