A solicitor who wrote to an opponent making assertions that could not be backed up has been rebuked by the regulator.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority said that Peter Vialls had been reckless in failing to balance the duty to his client with his duty to act with independence.
Vialls, from Cambridgeshire firm Wilkinson & Butler Solicitors, was instructed by his client in a negligence matter against another law firm. The claim was heard in October 2022 at Cambridge County Court and was dismissed, with the judge saying there was ‘no merit whatsoever’ to the allegations being advance and ‘certainly no basis’ for criminal proceedings.
The SRA explained that five months later, Vialls wrote to the other law firm saying that an appeal had been submitted in relation to the judgment. He said his client had made further allegations of wrongdoing and was considering reporting the matter to the police.
He also wrote that if the other firm made a reasonable settlement offer, then his client would not proceed further. If the firm did not make an offer, and the police did not pursue the matter further, the client would bring a private prosecution. The appeal was dismissed in April this year.
Vialls, a solicitor for 35 years, admitted that the follow-up letter to the other firm contained statements and assertions which were not properly arguable in light of the court’s earlier judgment. He had referred to allegations and a potential criminal action that had been comprehensively ruled out by the court.
He also allowed the client to contribute to the content of the letter he drafted and to make unarguable assertions, going against the advice he had provided.
The SRA said Vialls was in breach of the code of conduct which requires that solicitors only make assertions or put forward statements, representations or submissions to the court or others which are properly arguable.
It was acknowledged that Vialls recognised his conduct fell short and he had shown insight and remorse. There was no intent or motivation to incur costs for financial benefit.
The SRA said a rebuke was necessary to uphold public confidence in the profession and to deter others from similar behaviour in future. He agreed to pay £675 costs.
