Ted Piepenbrock's adventure to VexLit-land

[Hercule Parrot]

{Mods please feel free to move, edit or delate as you wish. This clearly isn't sovcit, but I think it's heading towards analogous waters. Vexlit & EXCRO can't be far away.)

Well then, since you ask me for a tale of arrogance, hubris and operatic nemesis….

Randomly wandering through Bailii I tripped over this remarkable story. Although not quite our usual fare, because no sovcit tactics have been employed (yet…), I think it’s a tragic and educational study of the human condition.

Firstly, our protagonist - Theodore Piepenbrock. Ted was born in the US, but nonetheless made the best of this and enjoyed much success. He attended the prestigious Berkeley University, where he acquired a civil engineering degree and a very smart wife (who would later become an eminent Professor of Medieval French Studies at Oxford). Ted was further blessed with a charming, confident and charismatic personality - barely 6yrs later he was the head of Ove Arup’s seismic engineering group, leading complex projects around the world.

Around 2000, Ted decided that his true calling was to be a global leader & teacher of organisational excellence. He took a PhD at MIT, with a dissertation about the culture & structures of successful businesses, and founded the “International Institute for Strategic Leadership” to promote his own ideas. (This might seem a tiny bit presumptuous and grandiose, but I imagine Ted was sure that he was going to be a very big fish in this lucrative field).

Breaking into the elite, international & tenured Business Schools isn’t easy, but Dr Ted got his start when the London School of Economics offered him a 3yr Teaching Fellow gig. Although not a faculty position, it was an opportunity to develop his academic reputation, build up some research & publications on the CV. And then it all went epically tits-up.

The LSE had funded an assistant for Dr Ted, and this post was given to one of his ex-students who enormously admired him. Ted also liked her, said she was smart and hard-working with a great career ahead of her. In Nov 2012, they travelled to America together for a tour of prestigious lectures. Something went horribly wrong in a hotel. Dr Ted claims that the assistant made unwelcome romantic overtures, while she claimed the reverse. Their close relationship was suddenly shattered and fraught.

This is a classic HR nightmare, familiar to all organisations who send staff to conferences and training courses. But Dr Ted decided he didn’t need to consult HR or his line manager – he was a global guru of leadership behaviour & values - he knew how to fix this. He arranged a 1:1 meeting with the assistant, in a park, and spent an hour explaining how she was wrong. That didn’t seem to work, so he went through it all again with her for another 2hrs, alone in the park.

The next day he felt that "she remained petulant and refused to engage in a conversation about her behaviour", so he called in one of his IISL colleagues. A third meeting was convened, in a hotel room, commencing after midnight. Dr Ted and his mature male friend tried for several hours to explain to the assistant that she was being unprofessional and disrespectful, and she needed to admit that she had caused these problems.

At some point the assistant called her mother for help, saying she was being prevented from leaving the hotel room, was exhausted and scared. Mom made some calls, and at 04:20am hotel security guards entered the room and escorted her to a taxi. The assistant never returned to work - she emailed her immediate resignation to LSE, with a complaint about Dr Ted’s behaviour.

LSE commenced a somewhat slow, disorganised investigation of the assistant's complaint, but shockingly closed this as ‘unproven’ because Dr Ted refused to cooperate. Dr Ted had by now played the sick card, and was absent for the remainder of his contract. He refused to attend Occupational Health meetings, claiming that he was so stressed and vulnerable that he couldn’t even got out of bed (although this didn’t prevent him from flying to India for a private lecture tour).

Unfortunately, Dr Ted’s bold crisis management strategy was not entirely successful. He had refused to engage with the complaint, but that didn’t stop other people from talking about it. The assistant had told her friends, and rumours spread very fast in academic circles. This was around the time of #MeToo, so Dr Ted’s reputation went down like the Titanic. Naturally LSE didn’t wish to offer Dr Ted any new roles at the end of his 3yr contract, so his employment ended there.

Which brings us to the present day. It seems that Dr Ted is now very much ‘damaged goods’ in academia, and his hopes of a glittering career are dashed. In my opinion he has only himself to blame, but Dr Ted doesn’t see it that way. Dr Ted has instead launched a barrage of legal claims, and published scandalously offensive denigration of various individuals...

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2 ... 00732.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1708.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2 ... 00732.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKET/20 ... _2015.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2022/119.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2022/2421.html

Along this journey Dr Ted has increasingly adopted the identity of severe Autism. He says that this condition prevents him from dealing with complex or ambiguous situations, and court proceedings must be contained in short, simple & clear segments. He can become overwhelmed if it seems that others do not believe him, or are not sufficiently respectful towards him.

Expert psychiatrists take a slightly different view, advising the court that Dr Ted “has narcissistic and borderline personality traits, one of which is a tendency to have a catastrophic reaction in the face of criticism or adversity. Another is self-aggrandising, namely a sense of superiority, difficulty coping with actual or perceived rejection”. (High Court 2018, para 177).

Dr Ted claims to be unable to pay the substantial costs already outstanding against him, and the words “totally without merit” are starting to appear in judgements. I can’t see this cycle of embittered litigation ending any time soon. Dr Ted still seems to imagine that somehow he can be vindicated and resume his effortless rise, but every judgement appears to further illustrate how unsuited he is for any complex or responsible position -

"We have not found the claimant to be a reliable or credible witness. We have concluded the claimant has demonstrated behaviour which is manipulative and dishonest. His approach to individuals who he believes have wronged him is frequently malicious and actively destructive". (ET para 7.24)

NB – in light of Dr Ted’s litigious tendencies, I will close by stating that this is my honest personal opinion of these events, as a member of the public reading the court judgements above and the press coverage of these events.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

LSE has a problem with vetting their (Ph.D.) doctors on their staff.

Not going to mention it here as it isn't a Quatloos subject, but another is on "sabbatical" for what could be at best described as "flying red flags" for at least a decade when it was all in plain sight.

[longdog]

Well that wasted an hour of a grey and drizzly afternoon in an entertaining but very baffling way and my head was spinning by the end trying to keep up with who did(n't) do what.

I don't think I've ever seen a finer example of the "...And another thing!" approach to litigation long after any sane person would have accepted defeat.

[mufc1959]

I often spent my lunch hour reading interesting cases on Bailii, and have followed Ted's adventures for a while.

Another source of entertainment is Yvonne Ameyaw, who, in a similar vein, will not take No for an answer, and whose conduct in the courtroom (as well as that of her witnesses) would try the patience of Job.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_sear ... &sort=rank

[longdog]

Many thanks (For the eye strain. I really must clean my glasses).

[John Uskglass]

Interesting that there are some points common to both cases; both employment disputes, both involve dramatic medical interruptions to proceedings, and both involve family members wishing to act for the claimant.

[rosy]

LSE has a problem with vetting their (Ph.D.) doctors on their staff.

Not going to mention it here as it isn't a Quatloos subject, but another is on "sabbatical" for what could be at best described as "flying red flags" for at least a decade when it was all in plain sight.

This was my immediate thought.

I have read one of those BAILII citations but the others aren't immediately ringing a bell from a quick scan. I will look forward to reading them tomorrow!

[Hercule Parrot]

Another source of entertainment is Yvonne Ameyaw, who, in a similar vein, will not take No for an answer, and whose conduct in the courtroom (as well as that of her witnesses) would try the patience of Job.

Oh yes, that case has been a joy. I dislike management consultants in general, so it was wall-to-wall schadenfreude. Her fake-lawyer friend Leonard Ogilvy has quite a storyline too -

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-n ... ud-clients
https://www.eccourts.org/leonard-ogilvy ... ral-et-al/

[Hercule Parrot]

Another source of entertainment is Yvonne Ameyaw, who, in a similar vein, will not take No for an answer, and whose conduct in the courtroom (as well as that of her witnesses) would try the patience of Job.

Oh yes, that case has been a joy - a few more judgements here too - https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... and-others I dislike management consultants in general, so it was wall-to-wall schadenfreude. Her fake-lawyer friend Leonard Ogilvy has quite a storyline too -

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-n ... ud-clients
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... 1/841.html (added link, astonishing case)
https://www.eccourts.org/leonard-ogilvy ... ral-et-al/

[rosy]

Dr Ted is winning! His prize is an extended civil restraint order for the next three years, expiring 12 March 2027.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/544.html

The barrister, Paul Michell, who acted for LSE when Ted sued them had the temerity to mention the case in his profile on the marketing website of his Chambers. There was a slight error in the profile and following an email from Ted's son, the barrister changed "£10m" to "multi-million". But that wasn't enough - Ted sued the LSE, Mr Michell and fifty other defendants - most of whom are wholly unconnected - over the error in the profile.

I particularly liked this para:

42. Mr McLeish also explains, amongst other things, that:
a. The forty-second defendant provided some work for Dr Piepenbrock in July 2018. Aside from that, none of the third to fifty second defendants have acted for Dr Piepenbrock at any time.

b. Two members of chambers have acted for Dr Piepenbrock in the past, but they are not named as defendants to the claim.

c. The twenty-first defendant was appointed to the Circuit Bench, and ceased to be a member of Cloisters on or before 6 November 2023.

d. Four of the barristers named as defendants to the claim were not members of Cloisters during the period 7 August 2021 to on or around 28 February 2022 when the Website Profile Entry was published on the Cloisters' website.

e. There are some members of Cloisters who are not named as defendants to the claim.

[Hercule Parrot]

Dr Ted is winning! His prize is an extended civil restraint order for the next three years, expiring 12 March 2027.

This was inevitable, I fear. Sad to see young Garry being drawn ever deeper into Dr Ted's narcissistic revenge crusade though. The lad had the huge privilege of an Eton education, and a very well-connected mother in UK academia. By now he could've established himself in secure, highly-rewarded employment, and developed his own life.

19. ....."the past 16 hours have been very difficult for my father and me, and I regret to inform you, that just like the previous occasions when my father was caused to suffer a debilitating autistic meltdown, his health has worsened and he is unable to continue and is awaiting a doctor's visit. My priority is to take care of my disabled father (as well as my own mental health, as I also am believed to suffer from autism). My priority therefore remains my father's health, and I will therefore also not be able to be present at the hearing. My disabled father will be medicated and asleep at 10am UK time today (2am in the US) and as we live in a small one room studio, I will not be able to attend the hearing..."

[JamesVincent]

The barrister, Paul Michell,

Same Paul Mitchell?

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9831

[SpearGrass]

Same Paul Mitchell?

No. Different spelling for one thing. And if Paul Michell the barrister had done half the things Paul Mitchell had done, he'd have been disbarred.

[wserra]

No. Different spelling for one thing. And if Paul Michell the barrister had done half the things Paul Mitchell had done, he'd have been disbarred committed.

FIFY.