LCRO 186/2017 and 84/2018 WE v VF (28 May 2019) [pdf, 190 KB]
...He submits: (a) his explanation that he had no recollection of having previously acted for Mr VF is credible given the “considerable effluxion of time” between acting for and acting against him; (b) the Committee ought to have called for affidavit evidence given that the reputation of “senior counsel” was in issue; (c) the Committee was wrong to conclude that there was a more than negligible risk of disclosure of confidential information;