The founding partners of the London-based law firm Pogust Goodhead have demanded that their names be removed from the practice amid an escalating dispute related to the UK’s largest class action lawsuit. Harris Pogust and Thomas Goodhead, who previously led the firm, have separately requested the disassociation of their names following a contentious legal battle over representation of Brazilian plaintiffs in a £36 billion claim stemming from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse.
The disaster resulted in 19 deaths, widespread destruction of villages, and contamination affecting roughly 400 miles of waterways. In November, a London High Court judge ruled that BHP, the world’s largest mining company, was negligent in connection with the event, though proceedings over damages continue, with a hearing slated for next year.
The dispute centers on which law firm should represent up to 400,000 Brazilian claimants in ongoing litigation. Recently, the client committee representing the victims opted to terminate Pogust Goodhead’s involvement and transferred their instructions to the London office of Bailey Glasser, a US firm that had recruited Thomas Goodhead. Pogust Goodhead plans to challenge this decision in the High Court next month, alleging that Bailey Glasser has not fully explained to the Brazilian clients the potential consequences of switching legal representation. Bailey Glasser counters that it has provided detailed briefings to the client committee.
In the backdrop of these developments, Harris Pogust, aged 63, launched a public criticism of his former firm, expressing frustration that his professional reputation was being impacted without his involvement. Pogust objected to filings made by Pogust Goodhead that identify the firm’s own clients as defendants and seek to require them to cover the firm’s costs if they change representation — a right he acknowledged but views as unfair under the circumstances. He further remarked on the harsh reality faced by the Brazilian claimants, noting that they have suffered severe losses and possess little resources. Pogust has sent formal notice to Pogust Goodhead stating his intention to pursue a cease and desist order to prevent further use of his name in association with the firm.
Similarly, Thomas Goodhead, dismissed by the firm last year following allegations of fund mismanagement in connection with the litigation, has also requested the removal of his name. Goodhead denies the accusations and has filed legal actions in Brazil to prohibit the continued use of his name there. He is reportedly preparing additional legal measures in the United Kingdom.
Pogust Goodhead responded by acknowledging that both former founders agree their names belong to the firm’s past. The firm noted that neither Pogust nor Goodhead holds any operational role in the practice currently and that efforts have been underway to move beyond the legacy of its original leadership. The ongoing disputes underscore persistent tensions as the firms continue to navigate one of the most significant environmental class actions in recent history.