In a surprising turn of events, the whistleblower lost his case. Unearth the details here, and learn how your company can best protect itself.
Employment Judge Sarah Goodman determined that a whistleblowing claim made by a consultant solicitor, alleging that a London law firm was overbilling a significant client, had no impact on the decision to terminate his contract.
In her ruling dated June 15, Judge Goodman decided that sole practitioner Paula Felton would have made the same choice to end her association with the lawyer, known only as A. Dobbie, regardless of his whistleblowing allegations.
Previously, in October, Employment Judge Emily Gordon Walker deemed Dobbie's warnings about the overbilling of a client in a highly-paid insurance case as a protected disclosure, as Dobbie believed his assertions were in the public's interest.
Judge Goodman was then tasked to ascertain whether Dobbie's disclosures influenced Felton's decision to discontinue working with him. Dobbie had joined Felton's practice as a paralegal in 2010, qualified as a solicitor with her support in March 2014, and his contract with Felton Solicitors was terminated in 2016.
The tribunal concluded that neither the termination of Dobbie's consultancy contract nor any other detriments he mentioned, like Felton reporting alleged misconduct to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Bar Standards Board, were significantly influenced by Dobbie's allegations.
Judge Goodman wrote:
"It was more likely fueled by her irritation at the claimant's neglect of basic discipline in file keeping than any protected disclosure."
Even if the protected disclosures did have some influence, Judge Goodman continued, the working relationship "would not have lasted long."
"The relationship was in trouble before any protected disclosure," the judge said. "He may only have lasted a week before she reached the conclusion that employment should be terminated."
Dobbie had demanded that his monthly fee for January and February 2016 be doubled and had refused to do any further work unless he was paid. The judgement indicated that Felton would likely have continued to resist this demand.
Felton and Dobbie had also reached a stalemate over the terms of a retainer in a case involving Dobbie's parents against a firm of builders. Concerns about value-added tax, payment to counsel, settlement money being diverted away from Felton without her knowledge, and the firm's reputation indicated that the relationship was problematic.
On Friday, Paula Felton said in an emailed statement that she felt the claimant had:
Recommended by LinkedIn
"...used the law as a sword rather than a shield throughout this matter. The laws put in place to protect genuine whistleblowers who suffer detriment are vitally important and should not be used purely to circumvent genuine gross misconduct dismissals."
Felton wrote:
"Any other outcome would have been absurd given the nature of my concerns about the claimant's conduct and integrity as an officer of the court."
How can employers avoid employees whistleblowing?
While it's not ethical or legal to prevent #employees from #whistleblowing —since it serves as an essential tool for accountability and #transparency —#employers can take steps to address issues proactively and reduce the likelihood of employees resorting to whistleblowing. Here's how:
Remember, the goal is not to prevent whistleblowing, but to create an environment where problems are addressed internally and promptly, reducing the need for employees to report issues externally. If in doubt, reach out to us at Britton and Time Solicitors for expert help and advice.