Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Chan Neill Solicitors LLP, on or around 2 November 2018, the respondent had filed a claim form (original claim form) with information he knew or ought to have known was incorrect, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and outcomes 5.1 and 5.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

On or around 1 May 2019 he had amended the original claim form to show a higher level of claim and court fee (amended claim form) and served it on the defendant without informing them that the original claim form had been amended and without paying the appropriate court fee, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 4 and 6. His conduct was dishonest.

The respondent’s motivation for his misconduct was to get himself out of a problem, which was that his client had not put him in funds in respect of the court fee.

The client had been impacted as her claim had been struck out on the basis that the claim form had never been validly served. The reputation of the profession was clearly damaged in circumstances where a solicitor knowingly submitted a claim form that was incorrect, then falsified it in order to mislead the other side in litigation, ultimately resulting in the claim being struck out.

The misconduct had occurred during a period of personal difficulty in that the respondent’s parents were suffering from ill health (at various times). The respondent had shown genuine insight and contrition. He had made full and frank admissions to the SRA at an early stage and had co-operated with it throughout.

The misconduct was at the highest level and the usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off. The circumstances in which such a sanction was not imposed were exceptional.

The respondent had faced difficult personal circumstances in relation to the poor health of his parents and the loss of his mother. While the SDT was sympathetic to the situation he had faced in that regard it had been unable to establish a clear link between those matters and the decision to lodge the inaccurate claim form and the subsequent decision to falsify it several months later.

Taking everything into account, the SDT was unable to conclude that the circumstances present at the time when the two acts of dishonesty had taken place were exceptional. The only appropriate sanction that could protect the reputation of the profession was that the respondent be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

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

While practising as a solicitor, the respondent had created false and misleading documents in relation to both purported representation provided to and purported prison visits held with four individuals: GF; JP; DO; and B, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

She had produced false and misleading DIS1 notice of report forms and/or handwritten notes for the same four individuals, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had been motivated by financial gain given that a percentage of her income from the firm was generated from expenses claimed. The respondent had made the false claims initially, then had subsequently sought to make good the same by the fabrication of documents.

Aggravating factors were (a) admitted dishonesty, (b) misconduct that was deliberate, calculated and repeated, (c) the misconduct took place over a period of time (October-November 2018), (d) the respondent had sought to conceal her misconduct by subsequently fabricating false documents when challenged, and (e) she must have known that her misconduct was in material breach of obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession.

Mitigating features were the open and frank admissions made to the firm and the applicant following the second tranche of false documents created by the respondent and the fact that she had previously had an unblemished regulatory history.

The respondent’s admitted misconduct was at the top end of the spectrum as regards seriousness such that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was an order striking the respondent from the roll. The mitigation advanced by the respondent did not amount to exceptional circumstances such that a strike-off could be categorised as disproportionate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,000.

On 8 January 2024, the panel resolved to intervene into Solstice Legal Services Ltd, formerly at 22 King Street, Frome, Somerset BA11 1BH. The firm closed on 8 December 2023.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of the firm – paragraph 1(2)(f) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP of Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX; tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@LA-Law.com has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 11 January.

On 22 January 2024 a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Abensons Law Ltd and into the practice of Edward Abenson at Abensons Law Ltd, which was based at 102 Allerton Road, Liverpool L18 2DA. The first date of attendance was 23 January 2024. The grounds of intervention were:

• to intervene into the individual practice of Abenson on the following ground: (i) there was reason to suspect dishonesty by Abenson in connection with his practice at Abensons Law Ltd (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• to intervene into Abensons Law Ltd on the following ground: (i) there was reason to suspect dishonesty by Abenson as a manager of Abensons Law Ltd in connection with Abensons Law Ltd’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

John Owen of Gordons, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com; tel: 0113 227 0391 has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.