Public dressing-down for lawyer who shared embargoed judgment

Sunday 09 July 2023

A judge has rapped the knuckles of a local lawyer publicly after an embargoed Royal Court judgment was used without permission in pleadings in a Californian bankruptcy court.

Commissioner Sir William Bailhache told Advocate Ian Jones that it was his direct responsibility as an officer of the court to ensure that the embargo on the judgment was not broken and he indicated that the Royal Court would in future "set out in more detail the consequences of breaking such embargoes".

"We are not proposing to take any further action in this case but we do not wish to understate the nature of that responsibility," Sir William said. "Its existence means that advocates of this court who receive a copy of a draft judgment under embargo must be extremely careful about sharing it."

He added: "Of course the court understands that in multi-jurisdictional litigation draft judgments are likely to be shared with other members of the team who are operating in other jurisdictions.

"If anything, that emphasises the obligation on the Jersey advocate to ensure that all members of the team with whom he or she shares the draft judgment are fully aware of the terms of the embargo, and if there is not complete confidence that the embargo will be respected, then the draft judgment should not be shared unless the court is specifically requested to give, and gives, its consent.

"We cannot be clearer than that because ultimately the responsibility for the breach of embargo rests with the Jersey advocate."

The case, which concerned an application by Garry Yuri Itkin to prevent Golden Sphinx Ltd from instructing Advocate Jeremy Garrood and removing the company’s joint liquidators, was heard by the Royal Court earlier this year.

The court – which also comprised Jurats Gareth Hughes and Jerry Ramsden – reserved its judgment at the hearing but followed standard practice in issuing a judgment in draft to allow any errors to be corrected before its subsequent delivery and publication.

Covering the emailed draft was a message which included the words: "For the avoidance of doubt, the draft is confidential [and] not to be disclosed for any other purpose."

However, between the release of the draft and its delivery almost three weeks later, some of its contents were used in proceedings before the US Bankruptcy Court Central District of California, Los Angeles Division.