A solicitor who acted pro bono in a child arrangement dispute despite having no experience of family law has been fined £40,000 for the way he conducted the matter.

James Brookes, who said he felt sorry for the mother in the case, admitted attending the father’s home on five separate occasions and sending inappropriate emails to him. Brookes further admitted purporting to serve a court order on a school when no order had been made, and requesting £1,000 compensation from the father with no basis for doing so.

Brookes, a criminal litigation specialist who was acting outside his firm, said he regarded the mother as a friend who was vulnerable and had been taken advantage of and was now desperate to achieve contact with her children.

But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found his misconduct was ‘deliberate, calculated and repeated’ and that he had detrimentally impacted the parents, the father’s partner and ultimately the children in the case. 

The tribunal added: ‘He further caused significant harm to the reputation of the profession which was severely undermined by solicitors offering their services in areas of law beyond their practice and expertise.

‘The public relied on solicitors to assist them competently and professionally. To offer services beyond one’s competence and ability, as Mr Brookes did, fundamentally undermined the reputation of the profession.’

Brookes began helping the mother in 2019 by offering advice on the law and procedure of Children Act proceedings. She had two children with her ex-husband and was subject to orders barring her from his home or contacting one of the children directly without prior agreement.

Brookes accompanied the mother to a hearing, went on the record as her representative and attended the father’s home to serve papers. On each occasion he was driven to the property by the mother.

At one stage the father emailed Brookes to ask him to stop, to which he replied referring to the father’s ‘historic violence’ and pledging to continue serving documents.

On one such visit, Brookes and the mother got out of their car and began shouting at the father, who Brookes called a ‘bald wally’.

In 2019, Brookes attended the school and left a sealed envelope with the secretary containing a court order for disclosure of a multi-agency referral form. When the father objected, Brookes emailed warning that he was ‘not a layer [sic] with whom you can correspond without consequence’. He added that he would request a £750 fee note and £1,000 compensation for breach of data protection.

In mitigation not agreed by the SRA, Brookes, a solicitor since 2008 with no regulatory history, said his motivation was entirely altruistic, albeit based on misplaced loyalty and his commitment to justice. He was dealing with a difficult lay client and an unrepresented father and trying to act in the mother’s best interests.

He agreed with the SRA to pay a £40,000 fine and £10,000 costs. This outcome was approved by the tribunal.

Topics