Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll.  

While in practice as a partner at a solicitors’ firm the respondent had pursued a course of conduct which he knew or ought to have known was unwanted and/or inappropriate towards A, which included taking covertly, and without A’s consent or knowledge, digital images of A; sending more than 1,000 messages to A by WhatsApp, including at weekends and outside of office hours and when A was on leave; repeatedly inviting A to dine with him; giving A gifts which, in number and kind, were inappropriate to a working relationship; and, having been granted bail by the British Transport Police with a condition: ‘Not to have any unsupervised direct or indirect contact with [A]’, had written a note for and addressed to A and placed it in her desk drawer at her workplace. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failed to achieve outcomes 2.1 and 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The above conduct was sexually motivated. It was deliberate, calculated and repeated, and had continued over a period of time. The respondent had deliberately targeted a junior member of staff over whom he had supervisory responsibilities and had thus abused his position of power and authority over her.

A’s physical and mental health had suffered as a direct result of the respondent’s conduct. That his conduct had also caused harm to the reputation of the profession was plain.

While the SDT did not impose unrealistic obligations upon the respondent’s conduct, this was more than a mistake or an error of judgement. It amounted to a repeated and prolonged abuse of a position of trust. The respondent’s actions were of a predatory sexual nature.

The allegations were so serious as to require a suspension from practice. They were further aggravated by the breach of police bail, which of itself amounted to serious misconduct.

The only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £59,550.

On 13 December 2023 an Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into Virgo Consultancy Services Ltd, from premises based at 265 Holton Road, Barry CF63 4HT. The first date of attendance was 14 December 2023.

The ground of intervention was: one or more of the terms of the firm’s licence have not been complied with (paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Enquiries@LA-Law.com) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.