From what we have heard from DU I think Fife cannot win the ET - the rapid escalation of the original complaints and suspension of SP by bandying about terms like "hate crime" and "patient care concerns" before they had even taken statements - they seem to have prejudiced their own complaint process from the outset. Sp's own complaints were not taken seriously and the "patient care concerns" as described in the tribunal seem to have nothing to do with patients but to do with DU's hurt feelings and need to be "affirmed" constantly.
In a way, I can see how Fife got into this situation when faced with an arrogant, intransigent DU who is the epitome of "main character syndrome" and expected their needs to be central and catered to over all others. DU was keeping notes on staff, and probably intended to sue from the outset, so Fife decided to take the path of least resistance and force the rest of the staff to fall into line and comply #be kind.
Not sure what consequences there will be from the ET for DU. Obviously the non-disclosure is against him as will any suggestion that he exaggerated/padded the complaints. The problem is how much will the ET blame him personally? Or will they place liability on Fife for poor procedures and not investigating properly.
The question is how long can JR represent 2 clients with diverging interests?