Solicitor 'at the top of his profession' suspended for 12 months

A ‘highly experienced’ solicitor at a West Midlands firm described as 'an expert in his field’ has been suspended from the roll for a year for misleading an elderly tenant.

Joel Woolf was instructed while in practice at Wright Hassall LLP to obtain possession of demised agricultural land. He served three notices to quit on the tenant, an 82-year-old man who farmed with his wife and son. The tenant would lose his right to challenge the notices if he failed to serve a counter-notice within one month and lose his security of tenure.

The three notices, which were all sent on 23 September 2020 and delivered the following day, differed as to which ground permission was sought.

Notice 1 and 2 were served with a covering letter by first class post and notice 2 and 3 were served with a second cover letter identical to the first apart from the words ‘by special delivery’. Both covering letters said: ‘Out of an abundance of caution we are affecting service by registered post and first class Royal Mail’.

The tenant’s son mistakenly believed the three notices were identical. He sent the notices served by first class post – notice 1 and 2 – to his father’s solicitors and the notices served by special delivery to his father.

As the solicitors were unaware of notice 3 until after the expiry of the deadline for service of a counter notice, no counter notice in respect of notice 3 was served.

Woolf admitted he knowingly sent or caused two letters to the tenant of his client which implied that the notices to quit enclosed with each were the same when in fact they were not. He admitted his conduct was in breach of principles 2, 5 and paragraph 1.2 of the code which the tribunal accepted.

The tribunal, who did not find Woolf’s conduct to be dishonest, found allegation 2, that Woolf’s conduct was reckless, not proved.

The judgment found Woolf had ‘caused harm both to the reputation of the profession and to the tenant and his family’.

The farmer was ultimately able to continue to occupy the holding but, it was submitted to the SDT, Woolf’s actions caused ‘considerable stress and anxiety to both the tenant and his son’.

The tribunal was told that Woolf was ‘at the top of his profession and had an impeccable career and unblemished record’ and the admitted and proven misconduct ‘had been hugely significant for him’.

The SDT judgment added said: ‘Mr Woolf was a highly experienced solicitor who was an expert in his field of agricultural law. Whilst he had followed a practice which he had regarded as commonplace in his field, as he himself acknowledged with the benefit of hindsight, his actions amounted to a “spoof”, “trick”, “ruse” and “sharp practice” – an attempt to “disguise” the service of differing multiple notices to quit. He had thereby sought to take advantage of the tenant, whom he knew to be elderly.

‘Mr Woolf’s misconduct was such that he had fallen far short of the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor. In the words of Sir Thomas Bingham MR, a solicitor must be capable of being “trusted to the ends of the earth”.’

The tribunal imposed a 12-month suspension from practice. Woolf must also pay £9,000 in costs.