LCRO 44/2017 JJ v IO, UZ, [Law Firm A] [pdf, 233 KB]
...it was those, rather than issues of personal welfare, that were covered by the EPA.10 (b) In any event, and had its existence affected Ms UZ and [Law Firm A]’s obligations, the fact MJ had brought with her Ms XZ of [Organisation A] and her job description could well have served to allay any concern about AJ’s welfare being in any way in a state of jeopardy that might go unattended. (c) Had Ms UZ contacted Ms JJ who, with LJ was by 2010 no longer a client of [Law Firm A], s...