A solicitor who was being struck off for dishonesty has made an extraordinary and unsubstantiated series of allegations about a ‘toxic’ environment against her former employer, national firm Irwin Mitchell.
Rachael Worthington, formerly known as Rachel Williams, admitted she had lied to clients about the progress of their cases and agreed with the Solicitors Regulation Authority that she should be removed from the roll.
Worthington invented hearing dates and judges’ comments to hide numerous failures to carry out instructions. On one probate dispute, she told an insurance company that a claim had been issued in court. She advised the client that a hearing had taken place and that the judge had urged the parties to seek to explore settlement. She later said that the court had processed draft directions and listed a further hearing to take place.
In reality, no claim had been filed and Worthington knew that the statements she was making were inaccurate and misleading.
More than 100 documents relating to the matter were found on Worthington’s computer and not saved to the firm’s case management system. The matter had been deleted from her monthly supervision list.
On another probate claim, Worthington told a client that she had emailed the defendants and confirmed that they would be issuing proceedings, when in fact the deadline had already passed. She made further misleading statements even when an adverse costs order was made against the client.
Worthington, who is 34 this year, was admitted in 2018 and her misconduct began two years later. She was on maternity leave in 2021 when she was contacted by Irwin Mitchell about concerns with her work. She did not attend a disciplinary interview arranged for her and resigned in February 2022. She told the SRA she had already decided to leave the profession.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which agreed to Worthington being struck off, said: ‘She had breached the trust placed in her as a solicitor to act in accordance with her clients’ instructions and to keep them informed of progress on their matters. She had misled client insurers in respect of cases and had sought to cover up the errors that she had made.’
The SRA did not adopt or endorse the mitigation put forward by Worthington, which was published as part of the tribunal ruling.
In this self-mitigation, she claimed to have been left without adequate supervision, working under a supervisor who was ‘barely available’ and met with ‘nonchalance, a lack of support or guidance’ when she said she was struggling.
She alleged she was bullied, forced to take a pay reduction during the pandemic and threatened with redundancy if she could not meet billing targets. Worthington suggested she was working 18-hour days, seven days a week and was under such pressure that she was even called about a work query while she was in labour in the delivery suite.
Irwin Mitchell declined to comment, except to point out that the SRA did not endorse or adopt any of the allegations of mistreatment.
Worthington agreed to pay £3,500 costs.
