Female lawyer who named firm after Legally Blonde wins £11k payout

A female lawyer who named her new firm after the Legally Blonde film has won an £11,000 payout after she was sacked by her boss who accused her of 'poaching' his clients.

Lucy Crossman was working out her notice when she found the name of the 2001 film starring Reese Witherspoon was up for grabs, an employment tribunal heard.

Believing 'it was so bad, it was good' the 42-year-old bought it as she eyed her next move in her legal career, it was heard.

She also changed the name of the contact details on her company's Facebook page, which she ran, to her personal phone number.

This enraged Terence Walsh, the boss of the solicitors firm which she was still working for, who accused her of trying to poach clients and fired her.

She sued for unfair dismissal and an employment judge has now awarded her damages over an 'undoubtedly flawed' disciplinary process.

The employment tribunal heard how Ms Crossman started working as a criminal litigation worker for Walsh Solicitors in Stockport in October 2016.

It was said that she had gathered a 'large client base' throughout her career and had an 'impressive understanding' of 'the power' of social media.

Soon after the experienced solicitor joined the firm she set up a Facebook page advertising her legal services and to attract new clientele for the business.

The Manchester tribunal noted that social media had become an 'increasingly important marketing and client communication' for legal practises.

It was heard the account was set as a business account off her own personal one, initially under the domain 'Lucy Crossman Solicitor'.

Her boss was not involved in the posts and his knowledge was restricted to his search of the page just like any member of the public.

Employment Judge Alan Johnson said: 'We concluded that ultimately, the real brand here was Lucy Crossman the solicitor, as opposed to Lucy Crossman, a solicitor working for a particular firm or organisation.

'This did blur the personal and the professional sides of Ms Crossman's life and on the balance of probabilities, this did mean that Walsh solicitors clients would or at least could have a relationship with her on this platform.'

It was heard that later in 2016, the profile domain name was changed to 'Head of Crime at Walsh Solicitors' and that during this time she solicitor had a 'reasonably happy working relationship' with her boss until early 2021 when there was an issue over her holiday pay entitlement.

Soon after this, there was an issue relating to her out-of-hours duty payment which led to an argument with her boss and consequently, she resigned in April 2021.

Days after she set up a separate limited company called 'Legally Blonde Limited', and she told the panel 'owning the name was the main reason for purchasing it' rather than its immediate use as a business.

The company is named after the comedy movie which shows Witherspoon's character Elle Woods as she is transformed at Harvard Law School from a glamorous sorority girl into a successful courtroom lawyer.

Later that month, while working out her notice period, the solicitor – who felt her bosses were trying to 'sabotage her' - updated the Facebook profile displaying a new personal phone number as she believed that she 'owned and controlled the administration of the Lucy Crossman Facebook sites'.

The tribunal heard that in preparing for her 'imminent exit' from the business, she decided to establish her own contact to 'ensure business continuity of her personal brand'.

Mr Walsh launched disciplinary proceedings against Ms Crossman, citing that his firm 'no longer has any control' of the social media page which belongs to them.

The tribunal heard that Mr Walsh thought by Ms Crossman putting her personal email and phone number onto the account, she had 'gone rogue'.

He was concerned that the solicitor was beginning to operate on a self-employed basis while working out her notice period and 'poaching' clients from him.

The panel noted that during a disciplinary hearing to discuss the matter, both Mr Crossman and Mr Walsh showed a 'suspicion' towards one another which had been 'existing for some time'.

EJ Johnson said throughout the meeting, they were trying to 'second guess' what the other was doing to 'maximise their position against the other'.

During the meeting, Mr Walsh asked Ms Crossman's companion to leave so that he could share his concerns over potential data issues.

The tribunal said Ms Crossman - who was dismissed after the hearing for gross misconduct - was given 'far too little notice' of the format of the afternoon's proceedings.

Upholding her unfair dismissal claim, the panel said that her actions did serve to 'undermine some of the trust and confidence that Walsh solicitors could have in her'.

'Nonetheless, this is a matter which could have been ameliorated by the parties engaging in a sensible discussion about the Facebook accounts and eliminating any misunderstandings that might have arisen,' the judge said.

'This failure was primarily the fault of [Walsh solicitor's] as an employer and a more considered approach before proceeding to a disciplinary hearing would have been a reasonable way to respond.'

The panel ruled that while the disciplinary process was 'undoubtedly flawed', it was 'provoked' by concerns relating to the changes to the contact details on Facebook and 'not for any other reason'.

The tribunal held that he 'displayed a fixed belief as to Ms Crossman's wrongdoing without properly investigating the incident with an open mind'.

During the proceedings, lawyers representing Mr Walsh tried to argue that she set up Legally Blonde limited as a 'rival parallel firm' but this was dismissed by the judge.

'Ms Crossman gave credible evidence to the Tribunal that she was surprised the company name was still available and said 'it was so bad, it was good',' the judge added.

Her claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal were upheld and she will be awarded £11,500 in compensation.

Other claims made by the solicitor were dismissed.