Lawyers round on license-stripped Uber’s ‘dishonourable history’ as stricken company calls on Hogan Lovells to fight appeal

By on

One says defending Uber is as out of fashion as defending Brexit, others think TfL’s decision is ‘Stalinist’

Transport for London (TfL) had Uber users reeling this weekend after stripping the app of its license because of a “lack of corporate responsibility” — and the legal Twitterati has had an awful lot to say about it.

Though the revolutionary cab company will continue to operate while its legal team at Hogan Lovells puts together an appeal, some lawyers think it should be game over for Uber. Paul Bernal, a senior law lecturer at the University of East Anglia, is particularly Uber averse, telling Legal Cheek readers the company is no “saintly victim of antediluvian black cab drivers”. He continued:

I think a lot of people forget that Uber has a dishonourable history in a number of ways, from allegations of privacy invasions and rumours (and more) of misogyny (for which a board member resigned). Just because the app is cool and the prices are low isn’t enough for Uber to be seen as the future-looking victims — and that’s not even starting on the safety issue!

Twitter was awash this weekend with further lawyer-led anti-Uber sentiments. In-house solicitor Andrew Sharpe said backing the company is “completely out of fashion”:

Media law partner Mark Stephens noted he just doesn’t understand those who defend the company:

But, despite Sharpe and Stephens’ sentiments, there certainly are people speaking out in favour of the app — not least the 750,000 petitioners that have called to ‘Save Your Uber in London’.

And lawyers too. Littleton Chambers’ Liz Dux tweeted that Uber has “revolutionised” her life and that she’s “devastated” about the prospect of losing it. Fellow barrister Joe Rich appears equally disconcerted by TfL’s ruling, telling Legal Cheek:

It’s arguably safer to be in an Uber than in any other type of taxi. TfL runs the rule over each Uber driver individually and all their journeys are individually tracked. Uber is now good enough for 732 cities in 84 countries, but strangely now not for cutting-edge London.

He also tweeted:

And Goldsmith Chambers Jerry Hayes, like Dux and Rich, worries about the impact TfL’s decision will have on Uber’s 40,000 drivers:

Though it may be a massive generalisation Uber seems the preserve of tech-savvy millennials, and it follows they’ll be the hardest hit by the decision. It’s interesting, then, to see early votes on the Legal Cheek poll embedded below show law students are pretty split on the whole thing.

This voting pattern may be explained by a combination of students’ desire for on-demand, cheaper transport services and their reluctance to endorse a company that’s had such a controversial legal history. Uber has been scalded for its tax practices, its treatment of staff and its method of calculating fares, among other things.

Hogan Lovells has long acted for the embattled cab company. TfL has a panel of external law firms, namely: Ashurst, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Eversheds Sutherland, Freshfields, Gowling WLG, Herbert Smith Freehills, K&L Gates, Lewis Silkin, Dentons, Trowers & Hamlins and Simmons & Simmons.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub.


Not Amused

Perhaps the nation would be better served if fewer people based their opinions upon what is or is not in fashion.


Sheik Yerbouti

Indeed. That Andrew Sharpe chap seems like a bit of a weapon.



The resignation was caused by the said board member saying that more women = more talking.

Which I don’t have a problem with.

Feminists stereotype and generalise women all the time. The point is that they only do so with positive attributes: women make proceedings more conciliatory/productive/less aggressive, etc.

But if we can talk about the positive things women bring to the table, surely we’re free to talk about the negatives as well?



I’d like to see specific examples of women in similar positions denigrating the ability or performance of male employees in general with impunity before I’m convinced that there is any special treatment going on here.



There was a study conducted fairly recently which demonstrated that men believe women talk more than they do and that actually they will talk less than men in meeting. I would not be surprised if its due to this stereotyping and false belief (from a legitimate source, google it). All these comments do is undermine women’s contributions to meetings by suggesting talking is a bad thing


Legal Sheikh

Since when did something being unfashionable make it wrong?

Very bizarre for Andrew Sharpe to try to correlate Uber and Brexit. Obsessed much?



“Though it may be a massive generalisation Uber seems the preserve of tech-savvy millennials, and it follows they’ll be the hardest hit by the decision.”

Oh, the sweet, sweet taste of millennial tears!


Trumpenkriegfinder General

I take it you’re on board with this refusal then regarding Uber’s dubious practices and exploitation of their workforce ?

Good for you Trumpy ! See, you are humanist after all (even if it is a bit snowflake-y) ! 🙂



This is nothing but TFL bowing to pressure from the black cabbies. If TFL really believed/cared that UBER was breaking the rules they would have taken some action in the last 5 years.



I agree with whatever Katie Hopkins says. She’s always right.



She’s posted at the top of the comments 😛


DUI Defense Lawyer Norwalk

Good writing. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed my Google News Reader..


Social Security Disability Lawyers Evansville

I’m really impressed that threes so much about this subject that’s been uncovered and you did it so well, with so much class





Comments are closed.