JK Rowling solicitor fined over leak - Page 2

rkomar · 01-02-2014, 11:23 PM

I saw in a message from AbeBooks recently that a first print run edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone went for US$20,000. I would expect that first edition copies of her mystery would have eventually sold for a similar price, except that now everyone who bought one knows not to just fling it aside after. I wonder if there were any collectors in the know before who are gnashing their teeth now over the knowledge going public?

bookaho!ic · 01-03-2014, 04:40 AM

on reading about this case i still think it was a great PR stunt for her

HarryT · 01-03-2014, 04:49 AM

It assuredly was NOT a "PR stunt". What reason or evidence do you have to believe that it was? Do you seriously believe that a solicitor would ruin his career as a "stunt"?

DrNefario · 01-03-2014, 05:39 AM

Didn't we have this argument repeatedly last time?

HarryT · 01-03-2014, 05:51 AM

We did indeed, which is why I find it astonishing that anyone could still make this claim.

Ripplinger · 01-03-2014, 06:14 AM

I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines.

The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth).

I think that's why some will always think we're not getting the whole story here. The attorney basically got a slap on the wrist and the firm donated to a charity, and everyone seems off the hook.

pdurrant · 01-03-2014, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines.

The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth).

Goodness me. You're right. Although it seems that Christopher Gossage is a partner at Russells, not merely an employee.

He has been rebuked by the Law Society, but has not lost his job.

bookaho!ic · 01-03-2014, 09:47 AM

OK sorry I must be wrong, i sometimes have rather a pessimistic view of things and think it did her no harm once it was found out. However I have not read the novel and after reading her other attempt at Adult fiction i would not buy this one now as i prefer the harry potter books.

Xanthe · 01-03-2014, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines.

The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth).

I think that's why some will always think we're not getting the whole story here. The attorney basically got a slap on the wrist and the firm donated to a charity, and everyone seems off the hook.

Sounds even more of a reason to think it was a PR stunt, then.

Quote:

Rebuke

Where we are satisfied that a firm or individual has failed to comply with the SRA Principles, we may give a written rebuke. This power does not apply to non-compliance occurring wholly before 1 June 2010. In those cases we may impose a different type of disciplinary sanction; either a reprimand or severe reprimand. Both the decision to issue the sanction and the decision to publish can be appealed at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

We may publish the details if we consider it is in the public interest to do so. A decision to publish is a separate decision to the decision to impose the sanction.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...s.page#rebukes

Oh dear! He got a note in his permanent file...

speakingtohe · 01-03-2014, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Sounds even more of a reason to think it was a PR stunt, then.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...s.page#rebukes

Oh dear! He got a note in his permanent file...

So you think the Solicitors Regulation Authority was in on this and it was a massive conspiracy?

Helen

ApK · 01-03-2014, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines.

The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth).

I think that's why some will always think we're not getting the whole story here. The attorney basically got a slap on the wrist and the firm donated to a charity, and everyone seems off the hook.

Some people can make a mistake and be given another a chance. That's OK.

I suspect it would be a different story if it was the lawyer who told the reporter, rather than the friend, and/or if the leak had resulted in Rowling losing a lot of money rather than making money. I understand she neither needed or wanted the money in that way, but I'm sure it would have been worse if it cost her. The lawyer seems to have had a moment of poor judgment, and will likely suffer for it professionally, but it does seem forgivable. He told a personal friend, and got an object lesson in why that was a bad idea.

Ripplinger · 01-04-2014, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApK

Some people can make a mistake and be given another a chance. That's OK.

I think we differ on the basic seriousness about this. You call it a mistake. I consider it a serious breach of ethics, especially considering who the client is (and I can't imagine how much she pays legal firm yearly), and that his firm deals with a lot of celebrity clients. I can't even begin to fathom what was he thinking when he told anyone. I couldn't even consider it a rookie mistake in the legal profession, let alone for an established partner at a firm.

Whether or not Rowlings lost a lot of money because of it doesn't matter. It's no less a serious breach of ethics.

HarryT · 01-04-2014, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I think we differ on the basic seriousness about this. You call it a mistake. I consider it a serious breach of ethics, especially considering who the client is (and I can't imagine how much she pays legal firm yearly), and that his firm deals with a lot of celebrity clients. I can't even begin to fathom what was he thinking when he told anyone. I couldn't even consider it a rookie mistake in the legal profession, let alone for an established partner at a firm.

The question is not whether or not it was a breach of professional ethics - it clearly was - but whether or not it was an action which justified banning someone for life from practising as a solicitor. The professional standards body decided that it was not.

Kumabjorn · 01-04-2014, 08:09 AM

Makes you wonder if other clients have terminated their contacts with said firm.

DiapDealer · 01-04-2014, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Didn't we have this argument repeatedly last time?

No we most assuredly did not!! What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
JK Rowling announces new novel	Daithi	News	205	10-17-2012 06:34 PM
Piracy Irony: Copyright firm fined after stealing music for anti-piracy ad.	spindlegirl	News	4	07-21-2012 06:41 AM
Memory leak in 0.8.28?	kongzifan	Calibre	6	12-02-2011 09:46 AM
Memory leak?	jhay777	Calibre	45	10-06-2011 10:18 AM
JK Rowling Announcement	6charlong	News	311	06-26-2011 07:01 PM

01-02-2014, 11:23 PM	#16
rkomar Wizard Posts: 3,054 Karma: 18821071 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Sudbury, ON, Canada Device: PRS-505, PB 902, PRS-T1, PB 623, PB 840, PB 633	I saw in a message from AbeBooks recently that a first print run edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone went for US$20,000. I would expect that first edition copies of her mystery would have eventually sold for a similar price, except that now everyone who bought one knows not to just fling it aside after. I wonder if there were any collectors in the know before who are gnashing their teeth now over the knowledge going public?

01-03-2014, 04:40 AM	#17
bookaho!ic Evangelist Posts: 466 Karma: 5575734 Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: UK Device: kobo Aura H20 2nd Ed	on reading about this case i still think it was a great PR stunt for her

01-03-2014, 04:49 AM	#18
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	It assuredly was NOT a "PR stunt". What reason or evidence do you have to believe that it was? Do you seriously believe that a solicitor would ruin his career as a "stunt"?

01-03-2014, 05:39 AM	#19
DrNefario Wizard Posts: 2,203 Karma: 12029046 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: UK Device: Kindle, Kobo Touch, Nook SimpleTouch	Didn't we have this argument repeatedly last time?

01-03-2014, 05:51 AM	#20
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	We did indeed, which is why I find it astonishing that anyone could still make this claim.

01-03-2014, 06:14 AM	#21
Ripplinger 350 Hoarder Posts: 3,574 Karma: 8281267 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Midwest USA Device: Sony PRS-350, Kobo Glo & Glo HD, PW2	I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines. The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth). I think that's why some will always think we're not getting the whole story here. The attorney basically got a slap on the wrist and the firm donated to a charity, and everyone seems off the hook.

01-03-2014, 09:47 AM	#23
bookaho!ic Evangelist Posts: 466 Karma: 5575734 Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: UK Device: kobo Aura H20 2nd Ed	OK sorry I must be wrong, i sometimes have rather a pessimistic view of things and think it did her no harm once it was found out. However I have not read the novel and after reading her other attempt at Adult fiction i would not buy this one now as i prefer the harry potter books.

01-04-2014, 08:09 AM	#29
Kumabjorn Basculocolpic Posts: 4,356 Karma: 20181319 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sweden Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1	Makes you wonder if other clients have terminated their contacts with said firm.

Advert

Advert