Written by A Freedom of Information response obtained by Legal Lens shows substantial payments by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust to Capsticks LLP over several years. The figures raise a wider public-interest question: how much public money is being spent on legal defence work, and what scrutiny applies when NHS legal partnerships are criticised for aggressive or obstructive litigation conduct?
Publication snapshot
- An FOI response is said to show approximately £1.6 million paid by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust to Capsticks LLP between April 2017 and March 2023.
- The supplied figures state that Capsticks handled 43 Employment Tribunal cases for the Trust from October 2018.
- The article places that spend in the wider context of criticism of NHS legal defence tactics and public-sector accountability.
- Several allegations concerning Capsticks and related NHS litigation require verification against judgments, correspondence and primary source documents before publication.
The FOI disclosure
A recent Freedom of Information response obtained by Legal Lens is said to show the scale of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust’s financial relationship with Capsticks LLP. According to the supplied material, the Trust spent approximately £1.6 million on legal services provided by Capsticks between April 2017 and March 2023.
The annual spend is said to have fluctuated over that period, peaking at £414,263.63 in the 2021–2022 financial year before declining slightly in the following year. Those figures should be checked against the original FOI schedule before publication, including whether they include VAT, disbursements, counsel fees, settlement-related costs or only Capsticks’ own invoices.
Approximately £1.6 million from April 2017 to March 2023, according to the supplied FOI material.
£414,263.63 in 2021–2022, subject to checking the FOI response and accounting basis.
These figures matter because NHS legal expenditure is public money. Where a Trust spends substantial sums on external solicitors, the public-interest question is not simply whether the bills were authorised. It is whether the spending was proportionate, properly governed and aligned with the values of a public healthcare institution.
What the spending shows
The supplied data places Capsticks in a prominent role within the Trust’s legal operations over several financial years. Legal expenditure of this kind may be entirely lawful and, in some cases, necessary. NHS bodies face employment disputes, clinical governance issues, regulatory risk, commercial questions and public-law complexity.
The issue is scrutiny. When an NHS organisation repeatedly instructs the same external firm, the governance questions become sharper: who reviews value for money, who assesses litigation conduct, and how does the Trust ensure that legal strategy does not become defensive institutional reflex?
Employment Tribunal representation
The supplied article states that, since October 2018, Capsticks LLP has handled 43 Employment Tribunal cases for Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. If accurate, that figure points to a substantial employment-litigation relationship.
Employment Tribunal defence work is not unusual for a large NHS employer. But repeated external representation in employment disputes can become significant where there are broader concerns about how staff, whistleblowers, litigants in person or internal complainants are treated.
The relevant question is not whether a Trust is entitled to defend claims. It is whether its defence strategy is fair, proportionate, disclosure-compliant and consistent with the public interest. That is particularly important where the claimant is an individual facing an institution with access to public funds and specialist legal representation.
The Rennie case context
The supplied article links the Lewisham and Greenwich FOI figures to wider criticism of Capsticks’ conduct in NHS Employment Tribunal litigation. It refers in particular to the case of Clive Rennie, who is said to have succeeded in a constructive dismissal claim against NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board.
According to the supplied material, Mr Rennie alleged misconduct during the proceedings, including delayed or obstructed disclosure of important grievance documents. The article also states that Capsticks was involved in an attempt to remove the presiding judge and that multiple lawyers were engaged in that application.
These are serious allegations and must be checked against the Tribunal judgment, any remedy judgment, case management orders, correspondence and the precise wording used by the judge. The article should not describe conduct as unethical, dishonest or manipulative unless those findings are clearly made by the Tribunal, a regulator or another competent authority.
Why the Rennie material needs careful handling
-
1
The underlying case involved an Employment Tribunal dispute between an individual claimant and NHS institutional respondents.
-
2
The supplied article alleges disclosure obstruction, delay and attempts to influence the tribunal process.
-
3
Any criticism of solicitors, witnesses or NHS staff must be tied to the exact wording of the judgment or primary evidence.
-
4
The public-interest argument is strongest when it distinguishes proven findings from allegations, submissions and commentary.
The Rennie example, if accurately reported, would be relevant because it goes to litigation culture: whether NHS defendants and their legal teams conduct tribunal proceedings with the fairness, candour and proportionality expected of public bodies.
Regulatory concerns
The supplied article also raises concerns about the Solicitors Regulation Authority and its relationship with Capsticks. It asserts that the SRA maintains an exclusive contract with Capsticks LLP and that critics regard this as a troubling accountability issue.
That point should be treated with particular care. Before publication, the existence, scope, date, exclusivity and relevance of any SRA contract with Capsticks should be verified from procurement records, contract notices, SRA publications or direct correspondence.
Regulatory credibility depends on perceived independence. If a regulator, public body or NHS organisation has a significant relationship with a firm whose conduct is under public criticism, the governance response should be transparent rather than defensive.
The governance question for NHS legal partnerships
The FOI figures raise a practical governance question for NHS institutions: how are external legal partnerships reviewed when serious concerns are raised about litigation tactics, disclosure conduct or the treatment of individual claimants?
In the public sector, legal services are not merely private professional services purchased with institutional funds. They are part of how public power is defended, explained and sometimes resisted. That makes oversight essential.
An NHS Trust may instruct external solicitors and defend Employment Tribunal claims where it considers that appropriate.
The same Trust should be able to explain cost, proportionality, procurement, conduct oversight and learning from litigation outcomes.
The stronger reform argument is not that NHS bodies should never defend claims. It is that legal defence work should not become a shield against accountability, disclosure or institutional learning.
The reform route
Advocates for reform argue that NHS legal partnerships should be subject to more transparent review. That could include independent scrutiny of high-value legal spend, post-case review of tribunal conduct, board-level reporting on repeat employment litigation, and clearer standards for external solicitors acting for public bodies.
Reform does not require an assumption that every defended claim is improper. It requires recognition that public bodies should defend litigation in a way that remains fair, evidence-led and consistent with public trust.
Questions for NHS boards
- How much is spent annually on external employment-law representation?
- Who reviews whether litigation strategy is proportionate?
- How are disclosure failures, judicial criticism or adverse findings escalated?
- Are repeat claims analysed for governance, HR or cultural learning?
- Is legal spend reported in a way that allows meaningful public scrutiny?
Questions for regulators and auditors
- Are public bodies learning from tribunal criticism?
- Are procurement and panel arrangements reviewed when serious concerns arise?
- Is there a mechanism for escalating repeated litigation-conduct concerns?
- Are complainants and litigants in person disadvantaged by resource imbalance?
- Is the use of public money consistent with transparency and fairness?
The publication test
This article is strongest if it keeps the FOI evidence, the Rennie case, Capsticks criticism and regulatory concerns in separate evidential categories. The FOI figures can be stated if the disclosure is available and accurately transcribed. The litigation criticism should be tied to judgments or primary documents. The SRA-contract point should be verified before being presented as fact.
The public-interest case does not depend on overstatement. The core issue is already clear: substantial public money is being spent on legal defence work, and NHS bodies should be able to demonstrate that this spending is fair, transparent and properly governed.
Practical conclusion
The Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust figures raise a wider question about the relationship between public healthcare bodies and the law firms they instruct. External lawyers can play a legitimate role in complex disputes. But when the same firms face criticism for hard-edged or obstructive litigation tactics, public bodies should not treat procurement and conduct as separate issues.
NHS organisations exist to serve the public. Their use of legal power should reflect that purpose. Legal spend, tribunal strategy and disclosure conduct should therefore be open to scrutiny, especially where individual claimants are facing publicly funded institutional defence teams.
The issue is not simply how much was spent. It is what that spending was used to defend, how the defence was conducted, and whether the public can trust the governance behind it.