Written by A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request has unveiled the extent of financial ties between Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and the beleaguered legal firm Capsticks LLP. The Trust’s response, obtained by Legal Lens, reveals significant expenditures on legal services provided by Capsticks over several years, raising serious questions about the firm’s continued influence within the NHS.
Rising Legal Costs
According to the data, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust spent approximately £1.6 million on Capsticks LLP from April 2017 to March 2023. The annual expenditure fluctuated during this period, peaking at £414,263.63 in the 2021–2022 financial year before slightly declining in the following year.
A substantial portion of these expenses stemmed from Employment Tribunal representation. Since October 2018, Capsticks LLP has handled 43 cases for the Trust, underscoring the firm’s prominent role in defending NHS institutions in legal disputes.
Controversial Partnership
This financial relationship comes amid growing scrutiny of Capsticks LLP for its aggressive litigation tactics and perceived obstructionism in Employment Tribunal proceedings. As highlighted in previous Legal Lens articles, the firm has faced criticism for strategies that appear to undermine tribunal integrity and favour institutional defendants over individual claimants.
One high-profile example is the case of Clive Rennie, who successfully sued NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board for constructive dismissal. Rennie, an assistant director, alleged misconduct by Capsticks during tribunal proceedings, including withholding critical evidence and implementing delays designed to weaken his claim.
Capsticks’ conduct in the case drew sharp condemnation. The firm orchestrated an attempt to remove the presiding judge, involving four of its lawyers, while representing both the Integrated Care Board and an NHS human resources firm involved in the dispute. Despite knowing of draft grievance documents central to the case, these entities failed to disclose them to the tribunal. Efforts to obtain these documents were met with significant obstruction, including evasive explanations from Capsticks’ representatives and silence from NHS Human Resources Manager Steve Stavrinou. Judge Postle ultimately called for disciplinary action against senior staff for dishonesty and criticised Capsticks for attempting to manipulate the tribunal process.
The final judgement not only vindicated Rennie but also exposed Capsticks’ unethical practices, fuelling calls for reform in NHS legal partnerships.
Regulatory Concerns
Despite the controversies, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) continues to maintain an exclusive contract with Capsticks LLP. Critics argue that this relationship reflects a troubling lack of accountability within the regulatory body, reinforcing a culture of opacity and institutional self-preservation.
The Trust’s substantial expenditure on Capsticks raises pressing questions about the oversight and governance of legal services within NHS institutions. With the 2023 renewal of Capsticks’ contract, stakeholders are increasingly demanding transparency and accountability in these financial dealings.
Calls for Reform
Advocates for reform within the NHS argue that partnerships with firms like Capsticks must be re-evaluated to ensure that legal representation upholds fairness and integrity. Proposals include conducting independent reviews of legal partnerships and introducing stringent oversight mechanisms to mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure public funds are spent responsibly.
Looking Ahead
As public trust in the NHS and its regulatory frameworks continues to waver, revelations about Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust’s legal expenditures with Capsticks LLP underscore the urgent need for systemic change. Aligning legal partnerships with the principles of transparency and justice is essential to safeguarding the credibility of the nation’s healthcare institutions and ensuring accountability in the use of public resources.
Source of Information
The details of the FOI request and the Trust’s response were made publicly available through a LinkedIn post. You can view the original post here. I would also like to acknowledge David Hencke article titled, Capsticks behind move to remove judge from tribunal hearing after he slammed NHS commissioning body for hiding documents from claimant, which assisted me in writing this piece.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisations or entities mentioned. This piece is for informational and critical commentary purposes only and is not intended as legal or professional advice.