Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000.

While working as a solicitor at PJH Law, the respondent had:

• sent correspondence to the Blackthorn Health Centre which had improperly threatened legal proceedings, in that: (i) the correspondence sought a form exempting client A from a Covid-19 vaccine to which the respondent knew or believed client A was not entitled; (ii) in default of that request, it threatened litigation where there was no proper legal basis for the claim; (iii) the correspondence improperly aimed to intimidate a lay party in that (a) it was excessively legalistic; and (b) it was abusive, intimidating and aggressive in tone and language; and (iv) the correspondence sought to invoke the framework of a legal claim, and the respondent’s status and a role of a solicitor, to lend unjustified weight to client A’s meritless request, and thereby the respondent had breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraphs 1.2 and 2.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs;
• he had sent a letter to the chair of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency which had improperly threatened legal proceedings in that it had: (i) threatened litigation where there was no proper factual or legal basis for the claim; (ii) made allegations of bad faith on the part of public officials, without proper foundation; (iii) sought forms of relief which were unrelated to, and disproportionate to, the grievances of his clients; and (iv) was for the ulterior purpose of promoting a campaign against the government’s public health measures, and in so doing, the respondent had breached principles 2 and 5 of the 2019 Principles, and paragraph 2.4 of the Solicitors Code.

The letters before action had been a tactical device to draw the recipients into litigation and thereby allow the respondent and his clients to present their cause in the public setting of the courtroom. The respondent had not been open and transparent about his motives and the correspondence had set out confused and legally baseless arguments in an unduly aggressive and intimidating way. That went beyond a mere mistaken approach as to wording and style and represented a level of disingenuousness and belligerence which was so disproportionate that it constituted professional misconduct.

The respondent had been strongly motivated by his own sense of what he thought was right. It was an attempt to change government policy. However, he had lacked the objectivity which had been required of him as a solicitor to the extent that he had blinded himself to the shortcomings of his approach.

His actions had not been spontaneous but planned, albeit he might have been swept along on the tide of campaigning zeal. To his credit the respondent had cooperated fully with the regulator in its investigation.

The respondent had wasted the recipients’ time and money in having to respond. The harm to the reputation of the profession by a solicitor using such tactics was high. The respondent’s insight was not at a level commensurate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The respondent’s misconduct was such that he had fallen far short of the standards of integrity and probity expected of a solicitor.

A solicitor must maintain objectivity and a sense of proportion in furtherance of their clients’ instructions. The more the solicitor becomes excessively preoccupied with the underlying cause espoused by their clients, the greater the danger of moving beyond the limits of their role as a legal adviser. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £66,500.

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

In his role as a director of a business called 350 PPM Ltd, the respondent had acted with a view to gain for himself or another, or with the intent to cause loss to another, by making an unwarranted demand with menaces, contrary to section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and 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.

Notwithstanding matters of non-agreed mitigation and the insight shown by the respondent, the nature of the criminal offence upon which he had been convicted spoke for itself.

The misconduct could only be viewed as extremely serious, and that fact, together with the need to protect the reputation of the legal profession, required that the only appropriate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,158.

On 21 October, an Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Ian Ross and into Ross & Co Solicitors LLP from premises based at Hamilton House, 1 Temple Avenue, London EC4Y 0HA. The first date of attendance was 23 October.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Ian Ross were:

(a) There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Mr Ross’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

(b) Mr Ross had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds for intervention into Ross & Co Solicitors LLP (the firm) were:

(a) There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Ross, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

(b) Mr Ross as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, the SRA Accounts Rules and the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules which are rules applicable to them as a manager of the firm and the firm itself by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of that act).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202786341) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.