Now work-experience-charging firm exposed for alleged plagiarism

By on

London niche practice forced to pull training contract blurb from website after alleged striking similarities with wording of City and national firms were uncovered


It’s not been the best 10 days for niche London practice Kawa Guimaraes & Associates.

First the firm was exposed as demanding that cash-strapped wannabe solicitors pay for work placements. And this week Kawa Guimaraes faced allegations that it cuts marketing costs by plagiarising on-line content from larger counterparts.

The Canary Wharf-based employment law and clinical negligence specialist today pulled from its website careers section all information it had been promoting about its training contract scheme.

That move coincides with a report on law firm partners blog Roll on Friday that much of the content on that page bore a suspiciously strong resemblance to the wording used on similar pages by the London office of global law firm Baker & McKenzie and national practice DWF.

On training contracts:


On person requirements:


But now, anyone keen to apply for a training contract at the firm — including those poor workies that have had to hand over cash for the privilege of operating the firm’s photocopier — is met with a stark response. The training contract section of the firm’s website simply reads: “Sorry, but we couldn’t find the content you were looking for.”


Neither senior partner Mehedi Rahim nor managing partner Kate Kawa responded to Legal Cheek requests for comment regarding the plagiarism allegation. However, RoF published a slightly bizarrely worded statement from the firm, which suggested that it had been the victim of allowing a third party too much unsupervised leeway.”Thank you for pointing out, which we were unaware,” read the statement.

We will look into this right away as we had delegated the work for website construction and content to outsider.

Kawa Guimaraes is not the only firm to fall into this trap recently. Last August, Legal Cheek reported on Kent-based Manak Solicitors, which embarrassingly admitted that much of its “news update” content had been nicked from BBC and Law Gazette commentator Joshua Rozenberg.

That firm also pointed the finger at clumsy web designers.


Canary Wharf law firm asks students to pay to do work experience [Legal Cheek]


Katarzyna Kawa, MBA (Bang.), BA (Holb.)

Kurwa! You slithery snakes! I thought my earlier warning was seficient, but clearly not enough! We categoricaly refuse any of the above plagiarism allegations – it was clearly DWF and Baker MacKenzie that copied it from us! Ha!

Having discussed our options with my fellow partners, expect to feel the full peppering of our consolidated, elite legal team, Legal Cheek! Our experienced litigators are working day in day out on the case and will bring guarantead justice for our elite legal firm.

Besides this, my fifty Polish cousins have already located your editor’s abode and they are now doing the same for you Mr Ames, leadpipes and bicycle chains in hand. Prepare to walk with the assistance of a Zimmer frame soon!




fuuuuarrk u mad blud?



Hang on, if your best people are going after legal cheek who will protect the vulnerable?



I laughed. And then I sharted


Kawa's head first clerk/pimp

Yak she mash…

Why so much the hatings?

She make it the good lawyerings on side the very nice price..

Make big discount on wage. Make sacrifice on position from number 3 prostitute in Poland…

Will make big sooing in this trash bum wiping internets paperings..

Very nice lawering, already overturn legal principle in court on appeal, the one about contract, “to many birds, spoiling broth in the Bush”

What court of appeal case you make, KURWA??!


Deed U No

Once again it can be seen that super egos city types are acting unprofessionally and bringing the profession into disrepute!
Yet they are allowed to practice law.



I think it might be a teensy bit dubious to describe these clowns as being in the same league as Skadden, Links, Slaughters et al.


Legal Weak

The barrage of criticism of this ‘law firm’ highlights one of the key problems in buying legal services as an individual. If you were just a regular person, i.e. not a GC with many years’ legal experience this outfit might seem to be on a par with many other law firms.
That is to say, how many punters with an employment claim will spent time seeking out what has been said about a firm on specialised websites like this one? Very, very few. Will they scan Chambers? Possibly not either. Will they even have access to any way at all of judging this firm? Nope. Only when they realise they have been royally stuffed will they understand. But of course it will be too late.
No idea really how to solve this one.
If you are Skaddens there will oodles of data available – but no normal folk would be able to afford them.
If you are this firm you can operate with impunity as there is no info out there. Hmm.


Not Amused

That’s why we used to regulate entry to the legal market. But the regulators said we were just being elitist and made us stop. Now the public are screwed but coincidentally there is a pressing urgency for more regulators to deal with these issues!


Legal Weak

I agree. How the SRA gave this lot an ABS licence defies imagination.


Person with eyes

I note with interest that they have changed the title of several people on their website from “associate” to “caseworker”. Interesting.



Oh my – these guys have ACTUALLY been shortlisted by The Lawyer for ‘ABS law Firm of THE YEAR 2015’ award. I literally can’t.


Comments are closed.