Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a solicitor at LDJ Solicitors LLP and while acting for A in her family matter, the respondent had requested explicit images from A on the basis that the images were required for legal reasons connected to her family matter, when he knew that not to be the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. The seriousness of that misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it was sexually motivated (although sexual motivation was not a necessary ingredient before the allegations could be found to be proved).

In addition, the above allegation was advanced on the basis that A was vulnerable, and that the respondent had or should have perceived her to be vulnerable. Vulnerability was not a necessary ingredient before the allegations could be found to be proved.

The respondent’s actions had not been spontaneous. He might not have had extensive experience at the time but anyone, irrespective of their level of experience, would know that it was seriously wrong to persuade another person to send explicit images of themselves when they were acting for the other person in a professional context and in circumstances where they knew that the images were not required for any purpose to do with the case other than their own sexual gratification. The respondent’s culpability was very high.

Harm had clearly been caused to A, whom the respondent had known to be vulnerable and whose vulnerability he had exploited for his own ends.

The respondent had caused great harm to the reputation of the solicitors’ profession by his selfish and dishonest conduct. He had taken advantage of a vulnerable person whom he had deliberately targeted.

The respondent had demonstrated neither genuine insight nor remorse. There had been no open or frank admissions, and no cooperation with his regulator.

The SDT could find no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Sharma and James in the respondent’s case. Strike-off from the roll was the only appropriate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £32,395.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While practising as a solicitor at Russell Jones and Walker and subsequently at Slater & Gordon UK Ltd, the respondent had misled his client EH about the progress of her personal injury claim which he was conducting on her behalf, by making false and misleading statements to her: thereby, insofar as such conduct had taken place before 1 July 2007, acting in breach of rules 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; insofar as such conduct had taken place between 1 July 2007 and 5 October 2011, acting in breach of rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; insofar as such conduct had taken place on or after 6 October 2011 but before 25 November 2019, acting in breach of principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; and insofar as such conduct had taken place on or after 25 November 2019, acting in breach of principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and/or paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

He had provided EH with documents that he had prepared in order to support the false and misleading statements he made to her about her personal injury claim: thereby, insofar as such conduct had taken place before 1 July 2007, acting in breach of rules 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; insofar as such conduct had taken place between 1 July 2007 and 5 October 2011, acting in breach of rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; insofar as such conduct had taken place on or after 6 October 2011 but before 25 November 2019, acting in breach of principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; insofar as such conduct had taken place on or after 25 November 2019, acting in breach of principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and/or paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent’s conduct was dishonest.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome. The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent was an experienced solicitor. He had conduct of the EH matter for a significant period of time. His dishonest conduct had been repeated over an extensive period of time.

In mitigation, he had cooperated in full with the investigation into his conduct, and had had a previously unblemished 20-year career. Given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the only reasonable and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no exceptional circumstances such that striking off would be disproportionate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,316.

On 31 May 2024, the SRA intervened into the practice of Philip Andrew Bridger, who formerly practised at Bridger & Co Ltd (in liquidation) of Old Bank Chambers, 35 High Street, Builth Wells LD2 3DL.

Bridger & Co Ltd was made subject of a winding-up order on 6 November 2023. On 12 December 2023, Siann Huntley of Leonard Curtis was appointed as liquidator.

The intervention into Mr Bridger’s practice is into any client files and money in the possession of Mr Bridger only.

The intervention excludes Mr Bridger’s practice at Bridger & Co Ltd, which is being wound up by the liquidator. The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Bridger as a solicitor in connection with his practice – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Solicitors Act 1974.
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of Bridger – paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1, Solicitors Act 1974.

Bridger’s practising certificate is suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

John Owen of Gordons LLP of 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford, BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0395; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed as the Society’s agent.