Who? Janet Legrand, 48-year-old litigation and arbitration partner at UK/US firm DLA Piper.


Why is she in the news? Ms Legrand represented the government of Zambia in a case where its former president, Dr Frederick Chiluba, was found to have conspired with others to misappropriate $46 million (£23 million) of the nation's assets during his time in office.



Mr Justice Peter Smith in the Chancery Division of the High Court found that one fraud - worth $25 million - was carried out under alleged secret operations by the Zambian government's security services. The second $21 million fraud involved non-existent deals for helicopters, fighter aircraft, arms and other equipment.



The judge concluded that part of the stolen monies was laundered in London through two law firms. He also pointed to Dr Chiluba's tailoring bill, which was more than ten times his total salary over the ten years he was in office - and which included the costs of 206 suits, 349 monogrammed shirts and 72 pairs of shoes.



Background: Ms Legrand was awarded an MA in law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge and joined Lovell White & King in 1981. She joined DLA Piper in 1991 as a partner.



Route to the case: A direct approach by the client. Ms Legrand specialises in international fraud and asset tracing.



Thoughts on the case: 'This case sets a legal precedent which should ensure that corrupt leaders are held accountable for their actions. It is a flagship case, not just for the Republic of Zambia, but also for the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. We hope to have provided African nations with a blueprint for cracking down on corruption.



'In August 2005 the Zambian-based defendants mounted a jurisdiction challenge, arguing that the UK court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. However, the judge and the Court of Appeal rejected this argument because the money laundering took place in England.



'The case was also unique because of the use of technology. The Zambian-based defendants (some of whom are currently facing criminal proceedings in Zambia) argued that they would not get a fair trial because they were not able to leave Zambia and give evidence in person.



'The judge found a practical solution and ordered the installation of a video link between the High Court in London and the Zambian High Court so that the Zambian-based defendants could give evidence in person. They chose not to.'



Dealing with the media: 'The case has attracted considerable interest in both the UK and Africa. The Zambian media in particular were keen to follow proceedings closely, but were prevented from doing so in order to protect the defendants' right to a fair trial. The media coverage in Zambia since the judgment has been colossal.'



Jonathan Rayner