CANDEY is a leading disputes-only law firm specialising in high value international commercial litigation, arbitration and complex regulatory disputes with offices in London & New York
CANDEY has been recognised by The Lawyer (finalist for Law Firm & Law Company of The Year) , Legal Business (finalist for Boutique Law Firm of The Year), Chambers (Highly Regarded) and the Legal 500 (Top Tier 1) as a leading litigation law firm in corporate and commercial litigation and international arbitration. We have appeared in a large number of significant High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases, making new law and clarifying existing law.
We are thoroughly commercial and enjoy what we do. Unlike nearly every other law firm we do not have hourly rate targets. Instead we believe in working with our clients where possible to agree value based fee structures, aiming always to think smart for our mutual benefit. Incredibly collegiate, we aim to be outstanding lawyers by embracing the law and business. We aim to ensure that our legal team has a work life balance, where necessary doubling the size of a team instead of exhausting individual lawyers.
Our lawyers are all exceptional multi-talented lawyers, be they solicitors, barristers or US attorneys. They are recruited on the basis of legal brilliance, nous, commercial acumen and a sense of humour.
We work closely with much larger firms as their litigation co-counsel whether or not our services are required due to conflicts. We always aim to be flexible, considered and sensible in relation to fees and our charging structures. We only do disputes and are unable to accept any instructions for corporate transactional work.
We have appeared in a large number of reported cases. We regularly achieve substantial victories for our clients, who are successful entrepreneurs, multi-nationals and professionals in a wide range of different areas and sectors, from oil and gas to technology, from financial services and banking to hotels. We have a particular interest in lawyers' rights, where we strive to assist the judiciary in achieving access to justice.
Recent reported cases include High Court and Court of Appeal judgments on the ability to grant security over monies in Court, the principle of good faith, reflective loss and double derivative shareholder actions, verbal constructive trusts, resulting trusts, competing arbitration and court clauses, varying retainers, non-party costs orders, the value of security pursuant to a floating charge, the meaning of risk of dissipation, solicitors' rights to be paid first from the fruits of litigation, the ability to assign a cause of action to a lawyer, the right of Defendants to rely on contingency agreements, liquidators' liability for benefits received, and the ability of criminals to hide behind privilege.
We will act for Claimants and Defendants and will sue banks and financial institutions that the large city firms will only defend.
As a firm we have a special interest in pursuing lawyers’ rights as we recognise that strengthening their rights facilitates the people’s rights and access to justice.
We believe that lawyers should take more risk on behalf of clients in meritorious claims and have adopted an active approach to litigation in this area, given that absent such risk taking, often only those with cash can win litigation. Where we have sued in our own name, where we are the client, we do so with a greater appetite for risk. We obviously act in our own financial interest but we are also motivated by a desire to fight for change to the law, to seek to make new law and influence the jurisprudence of the English Court. Our work in this area in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has been extensive.
We shall continue to push and test the boundaries of the law for ourselves and for all lawyers in respect of their rights so that with the judiciary we may incentivise other lawyers to act on a contingency basis for clients throughout the UK and beyond to achieve access to justice, the hallmark of a civilised society.
We have also founded a parliamentary lobbying group to advocate for change to be implemented by Parliament.
Current legislation that is meant to encourage firms to act on a contingency basis is woefully unfit for purpose. There is an inequality of arms as Defendants may not take advantage of a percentage based claim, and there is insufficient protection for lawyers whose client may become insolvent (they are cash poor in the first place) and then be sacked and replaced by an insolvency practitioner before a win or success has been achieved leaving them to rank on an unsecured basis. As a consequence few lawyers will act for a cash poor client with a meritorious position on a contingency for fear of insolvency. This could be cured by giving the lawyer a right to take an assignment of the client’s case, subject to accounting to the client for their share of the winnings and ensuring the client receives independent advice. It may also be cured by a case which tests the definition of instrumentality where the earlier firm is found to have been the joint cause of a win.
We work with our clients to arrive at a fair and reasonable charging solution. Whilst English lawyers normally charge on a time basis we recognise that there are many other ways in which disputes can be funded. We are one of only a very few firms of leading commercial litigation lawyers who will consider acting on a contingent basis, charging only when we have won a case. Our success fee approach is based on a percentage of recoveries or with an increase or “uplift” on our hourly rates, charging nothing should we lose.
To date we have funded most of our contingent cases ourselves, but we are increasingly open to working with funders provided their interests are aligned with our clients.
As a hybrid firm of solicitors, and barristers and US attorneys, where appropriate we will also fund in house and external barristers’ fees and/or charge on a fixed fee basis.
Where necessary we work with a number of after the event (ATE) insurers to obtain cover thereby protecting our clients from adverse costs orders. This flexible approach to legal costs is favoured by both entrepreneurs, private equity funds and multi-nationals, who may not have access to capital or who wish to deploy capital elsewhere and reduce their balance sheet exposure.
We have close and valuable relationships with law firms throughout the world.
We are not tied to a global network simply because we have an office there: we add value for our clients by choosing to work with lawyers we recognise as being the best in their region.
A number of our commercial litigation lawyers have been called and admitted to the bar of the British Virgin Islands. We are frequently in the British Virgin Islands where we work together with local BVI lawyers in leading cases before the Commercial Court and Eastern Caribbean Circuit.
© CANDEY Limited, London & CANDEY LLC, New York