Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent be suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of 12 months from 11 July 2024.

The allegations against the respondent were that while in practice as a solicitor she had caused or allowed a witness statement containing her signed statement of truth to be filed with the court when she knew or ought to have known that it contained an assertion which was misleading, and had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Following a hearing on 8 November 2021, she had failed to tell her client or its insurer that its defence and counterclaim had been struck out for failing to comply with an unless order, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and paragraphs 1.4, 3.2 and 7.11 of the Code for Solicitors.

Following that hearing, she had also failed to tell the firm that her client’s defence and counterclaim had been struck out for failing to comply with the unless order, thereby breaching principle 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code for Solicitors.

The respondent’s conduct had been reckless.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to this judgment. The parties submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the tribunal’s guidance note on sanctions.

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 SDT had found that the respondent’s misconduct was serious, and it had been aggravated by the fact that she had been reckless.

As mitigating factors, the SDT considered that she was relatively inexperienced as a solicitor and that confusion had, to some extent, been caused by administrative errors for which the respondent was not responsible.

The SDT was satisfied that the agreed suspension of 12 months was required to maintain the public confidence in the profession and to send a deterrent message to solicitors who found themselves in a similar predicament.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,469.

The SDT ordered that the respondent pay a fine of £6,500.

While in practice as an associate solicitor at Waterfords Group Ltd, the respondent had accepted an invitation to participate in a TV broadcast for Press TV, an Iranian state-owned news and documentary network.

At the time when he accepted the invitation, he understood that the programme was to discuss the subject of strategic lawsuits against public participation and how SLAPPs were used to suppress Palestinian voices.

In fact, the broadcast took the form of a wide-ranging attack upon the firm of solicitors, Mishcon de Reya LLP, and specific named individuals who were working or had worked for Mishcon, focusing on the firm’s close links with Israel. The content and/or the tone of the broadcast was antisemitic. When he arrived at the studio to take part in the broadcast, the respondent became aware that the episode was to be called ‘Mishcon de Reya – Zionist Law Firm’. Either before or during the recording, he was shown pre-recorded video clips relating to Mishcon about which he was going to be asked questions. During the broadcast, he was introduced as and repeatedly identified as a solicitor.

In continuing to participate in the broadcast, the respondent had breached his obligations under the SRA Principles 2019 and Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, in that: (i) he had agreed to participate or to continue to participate in the broadcast, even after having been shown the video clips, when he knew that he had not prepared himself to speak about the matters to be discussed and/or did not have sufficient knowledge to be confident that he could be presented as a solicitor with knowledge and/or sufficient expertise on the subjects to be discussed; and (ii) during the broadcast, he had made false and inaccurate statements about Mishcon.

After the broadcast had been completed, despite feeling uneasy about his participation in it, he had failed to take steps in a timely way to raise his concerns with those responsible for its content and dissemination or seek to disassociate himself from it or request that the recording of his participation in it should be removed, only doing so when matters were brought to his attention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

By reason of any or all of the matters set out above, the respondent had breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent’s misconduct was unplanned and spontaneous and his culpability was low. Making the inaccurate statements he had as a solicitor had undermined trust and confidence in the profession and had caused harm to the firm.

The SDT had taken into account various mitigating factors including that he had apologised to the firm and publicly, and had shown genuine insight and would not go on the programme again. The SDT ordered a fine (at level 2) of £6,500.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

On 8 October 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened into the licensed body, Lawbriefs Ltd, of 39 Long Acre, London WC2E 9LG.

The ground of intervention into Lawbriefs Ltd was that one or more of the terms of the firm’s licence had not been complied with (paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202 786 341) has been appointed as intervention agent.