Hassans International Law Firm Limited is disappointed that Mr Keith Azopardi KC MP, Leader of the Opposition and Senior Litigation Partner at the rival law firm Triay Stagnetto Neish (“TSN”), has publicly attacked Mr Daniel Greenberg CB – a respected legislative draftsman and the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – solely on the basis that Mr Greenberg has previously been instructed by Hassans.
The Criticism is Without Foundation
Mr Azopardi’s objection centres on an alleged conflict of interest. However, Mr Greenberg is not instructed by Hassans in relation to the Bill in question. His engagement on this matter is entirely separate from any prior professional relationship with our firm. There is no legal or political substance to the criticism whatsoever.
Mr Azopardi’s Own Position
It is important that the public understand the context in which this criticism is being made. Mr Azopardi is not a disinterested observer. He is a senior litigation partner at a competing law firm. His attack on the Government’s right to instruct professionals of its choosing raises an obvious question: is this political opposition, or competitive positioning?
Mr Azopardi’s own firm, TSN, has been instructed repeatedly by both the current and former administrations. Mr Azopardi himself has personally received instructions from the current Government. He appears to see no difficulty in his own firm accepting such work, yet takes public issue when others do the same. The inconsistency is striking.
A Pattern of Contradictions
The contradictions in Mr Azopardi’s stance do not end there. He succeeded Mr Daniel Feetham KC as leader of the GSD – Mr Feetham being a current partner at Hassans. Indeed, on the very same day as his criticism of our firm, Mr Azopardi proposed a motion to confer Life Membership of his party on Mr Feetham. It is difficult to reconcile an attack on Hassans with a simultaneous tribute to one of its partners.
Furthermore, Mr Azopardi himself was formerly an Associate at Hassans. He too has a prior professional relationship with our firm. He has also received very substantial conflict referrals from Hassans over many years – work directed to him and his firm precisely because of our existing client relationships.
Conclusion
Mr Azopardi’s position is entirely inconsistent. A fair-minded member of the public might reasonably conclude that these remarks have less to do with genuine concerns about standards in public life and rather more to do with a senior partner at a rival law firm using his political platform to undermine a competitor.
Hassans calls on Mr Azopardi to withdraw his criticism and to engage with the substance of the Bill rather than making pointed, unfair, and unfounded attacks on a single law firm.
