Court of Appeal Overturns Finding of Dishonest Assistance Against Law Firm Partner The Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling that a law firm partner acted with "active dishonesty," establishing a critical legal distinction between professional negligence and dishonest conduct. In the case of *Grosvenor Property Developers Limited (in liquidation) v Portner Law Limited*, the court set aside a previous decision that had found Portner Law Limited vicariously liable for the actions of partner Daniel Broughton. Broughton had been accused of dishonest assistance regarding the misappropriation of £2,399,000 during London property transactions involving Sanjiv Varma, a figure later found liable for the misappropriation of approximately £7 million in separate proceedings. While the lower court had previously concluded that Broughton showed a "complete disregard for his professional obligations" regarding source-of-funds checks, the Court of Appeal found that the judge had erred in her approach to the test for dishonesty. In the lead judgment, Lady Justice Falk, supported by Lord Justices Nugee and Phillips, emphasized that "there is a critical distinction between negligent behaviour... and dishonesty." The court noted that while Broughton was "knowingly cutting corners," a failure to perform the duties of a diligent solicitor does not equate to dishonesty unless there is a conscious choice to avoid inquiries for fear of what might be discovered. The appellate judges concluded that the evidence supported a finding of negligence rather than dishonesty. However, the court cautioned that its ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of lax professional standards, stating that nothing in the judgment "should be taken to condone lax behaviour, whether by conveyancing solicitors or any other professionals."