A fee earner with national firm Stowe Family Law has admitted misleading clients and another firm on six separate occasions.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority accepted that Charlotte Treves, who was employed in the firm’s St Albans office, was working under pressure but found she had acted dishonestly and could no longer work in the legal profession without seeking permission.
Treves’ files were reviewed by the firm between November 2023 and January 2024 and issues were identified on seven matters. In four cases, she had chased clients on correspondence she claimed to have sent to them previously. The evidence showed that the correspondence was actually sent at a later date and Treves had sought to cover her actions by forwarding emails to herself and then amending the date before sending it on to the client.
She amended the date on another email when she chased a law firm to make it look as if the email was sent earlier. On a different matter Treves recorded time by drafting a letter and telling the client it had already been sent to them. Another client was also charged for work she had not carried out.
The firm put its findings to Treves and she admitted the conduct on six of the seven matters raised. She resigned in February 2024.
Treves admitted to the SRA providing misleading information and actively seeking to conceal her actions. In mitigation, taken into account by the SRA, she said she was dealing with significant personal challenges at the time and had become ‘overwhelmed’ with work, although she accepted she should have sought help sooner. She admitted misconduct, expressed deep remorse for her actions and fully co-operated with the SRA investigation.
The SRA said: ‘Charlotte Treves’ conduct makes it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice because it demonstrates that under pressure, albeit with significant mitigation from her personal circumstances, she was willing to mislead clients and create misleading correspondence to conceal her actions.
‘A person willing to do this is not suitable to work in legal practise. If such conduct were to be repeated in future, it would pose a risk to clients and public trust.’
She agreed to pay £300 costs.
