The solicitor who acted for the AA’s former chief executive in a struck-out conspiracy claim has apologised for researching conspiracy and fraud while appearing as a witness in a subsequent negligence claim. 

Simon Walton, a partner at City firm Rosenblatt who worked on Robert Mackenzie’s claim against the AA, apologised to Mr Justice Fancourt and the court today for forwarding an article to Nicholas Bacon KC, who is appearing for Rosenblatt Ltd in the claim, which he felt ‘could help with closing statement'.

Mackenzie is suing Rosenblatt Solicitors, which became the listed firm Rosenblatt Ltd and which now operates as RBL Law, for negligence after his conspiracy claim against the AA was dismissed.

The court previously heard that Mackenzie agreed to a fixed fee retainer of £300,000 for Rosenblatt to take Mackenzie’s case to trial and cover all work required.

Explaining why he had acted as he did, Walton said that, during cross-examination he had been asked if conspiracy was tantamount to fraud. 'I gave you my answer, then on my way to court... [the following day] I wanted to check whether I was right for my own curiosity. I was interested to see if my answer was correct.

‘I was researching the point of law, whether fraud and conspiracy went hand in hand, and what came up was an article published from Mr Bacon’s chambers. I thought it would be useful for closing statements, so I forwarded it to Mr Bacon ,which was a stupid thing to do.’

Walton apologised to the judge and the court.

The trial earlier heard from Ian Rosenblatt, RBL Law’s senior partner, who said his team had ‘worked every angle of possibility’ to fulfil Mackenzie’s instructions.

Hugh Jackson, for Mackenzie, said: ‘It was negligent not to advise the client that [the claim] had obvious problems with it. It was unsustainable.’

Rosenblatt replied that the claim had been 'negligible' in commercial value. He added: ‘What I was trying to do is help these people who are in a mess. What I do remember is being asked the question specifically by them [about the conspiracy claim being struck out] which suggests they knew it was coming and I said "I just do not know but I am concerned", and we need to think about pivoting.

‘I was working hard for the clients all the time,' Rosenblatt said. ‘I personally did not have that conversation [about the conspiracy claim] with them. They were very aware that the conspiracy claim was no longer sustainable.

‘[The Mackenzies] already knew this was coming and were aware we had great doubts about the conspiracy claim. They knew the strike out application was coming. We are being criticised for trying to find solutions for the client.'

The claim is the latest in a long legal battle between Mackenzie and the AA which reached the Court of Appeal in July 2022.

The hearing continues.