There’s an old line about lawyers that gets passed around quietly, usually by people who’ve survived them:
“They serve the client… until their real client becomes their own reputation.”
Enter Wendy Miller KC of St Philips Chambers.
By title alone, she’s a barrister of stature. King’s Counsel. The type you bring in when the fire’s not just at your door but halfway down the hallway. When Cummins Ltd needed to extinguish a public claim from a disabled litigant with an X account, Miller was drafted in – surgical, sharp, manipulative and confident she’d handle it. And, initially, she did.
The case closed. Quietly. No noise. No headlines. No loss of face for Cummins.
She delivered. And then she doubled down.
A New Client, A Familiar Opponent
Months later, in a twist so on-the-nose it reads like satire, another company – Cepac Ltd – facing a similar claim – disability discrimination – though this time in recruitment, turned to Miller after learning through medical files of their opponents tribunal history. The opposing party? Same guy. Similar allegations. This time, the claim was more layered. More pointed. It alleged not just discrimination but also judicial bias and procedural unfairness.
And Wendy Miller, now holding the pen for Cepac, began writing her next chapter in this increasingly tangled saga.
But something felt off.
The Lawyer With Two Masks
At the Employment Tribunal, everything is about strategy: posture, timing, and narrative. So when Cummins was suddenly being offered a path to resolution – a private, confidential settlement opportunity – what followed didn’t track.
Jiten Kotecha, the polite, reserved and cautious solicitor acting for Cummins, rejected it outright.
No negotiation. No conversation. Just a clipped dismissal. His second curt rejection.
For a multinational under fire, staring down reputational damage from Apple’s passive observance, and being shredded across social media and a newly formed blog, it was a surprisingly flat response.
So what changed?
Who Gains From Keeping the Fight Alive?
The truth may lie not with Jiten, but behind him. With the hand not seen, but felt.
Settling with the claimant wouldn’t just silence a persistent critic – it would risk undermining the optics of Miller’s win in the first case. Worse, it could cast doubt on the legitimacy of her second one. A settlement is a concession. Even if silent. Even if sealed. And that’s not a headline Miller can afford – not while she’s still in the trenches for Cepac, against the same disabled low-hanging fruit she seemingly revelled in having a second bite at.
Because if Cummins folds, what happens to the “nothing to admit, nothing to fix” stance she’s built for Cepac?
An Ethical Tangle
It’s easy to say this is just strategy. That lawyers operate on both sides of a chessboard all the time. But this isn’t chess. This is real life. Real people. Real reputations. Real consequences.
Dual representation isn’t just a logistical risk. It’s a conflict of interest masquerading as convenience. Because how can any barrister argue vehemently that a claimant is vexatious and wrong… only to have their former client privately agree to settle?
The contradiction is fatal.
Worse, it raises the headline question:
Who does Wendy Miller KC really represent?
Cummins? Cepac? Justice?
Or perhaps the answer is simpler than any of us would like to admit: herself.
Lee Thompson
Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
@tcumminsap | tcap.blog