News

Quinn Emanuel lawyer convicted of dangerous driving following parking row outside daughter’s nursery school

By on
6

Boris Bronfentrinker tells Legal Cheek he’s “considering grounds for an appeal” after being hit with £5k fine and 12 month driving ban

One of the City’s top litigation lawyers has been hit with a fine and driving ban after a court found he had driven dangerously during a dispute over parking outside his daughter’s nursery school in central London.

Southwark Crown Court heard how Quinn Emanuel partner Boris Bronfentrinker became involved in an “aggressive” parking row with Marylebone resident Peter Bullen on 18 January 2019.

This is said to have resulted in the solicitor-advocate, who co-heads Quinn’s competition litigation practice in the UK, driving his hybrid Mercedes towards Bullen so that he was forced to jump out of the way.

Bronfentrinker denied wrongdoing, telling the court that he had moved towards Bullen for a short period of time because “that was the only way to leave”, the Mirror reports. He said he rolled his vehicle forward which was “only going two to three miles an hour” and veered to the right to get back on to the road.

But the jury convicted him on one court of dangerous driving this afternoon by a majority verdict of 10-2.

The 2021 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The Quinn partner was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,000, and a further £350 in compensation to Bullen. He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Responding to the court’s decision, Bronfentrinker told Legal Cheek:

“I am very disappointed by the outcome of the trial. There were failing in the way the matter was investigated by the police, including a failure to secure CCTV footage that would have proven what happened on the day in question. It was not a unanimous verdict from the jury. I am presently considering grounds for appeal. It is notable that in sentencing the judge stated he accepted I had no intention to harm the complainant, I had no intention to injure the complaint, and I had been in control of my vehicle.”

He added:

“The judge also accepted I was entitled to park where I was parked and that this was a momentary matter. This was a low level offence that has been dealt with by way of a fine. I do not consider that my driving was dangerous and that is why I am considering grounds for an appeal.”

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

6 Comments

Advocate

Why no coverage over the QC whose dog killed Freddie the seal in Hammersmith?

(18)(1)

Anonymous

Popbitch reported she had sought a gagging injunction relying on the Cliff Richard decision. Would make sense given the sudden silence in the news. Knee jerk denial of illegality, delayed expression of regret reeking of PR crafting, a gagging injunction and the hope memories fade. That is how the entitled operate these days.

(32)(1)

Sadrom

How stupid would you have to be to decide to work at Quinn Emanuel? Asking for a friend.

(114)(4)

Anonymous

It doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere, but on a conviction for dangerous driving you also have to do the extended re-test. So it quite often ends up being somewhat more than 12 months before you can get back on the road solo.

(2)(0)

A

A man with class would issue a statement saying “I am sorry.” It comes as no surprise therefore that the self-serving PR release does not include an apology.

(11)(16)

Legal Cheek

There was a posting on this site at 9.38pm on 1 April, about this article attributed to S.Prevezer. It has since been removed from the site, as it has become clear that it was not a posting by Ms Prevezer QC.

(4)(11)

Comments are closed.