Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £2,500.

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent had sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 247 schools and GP surgeries, and had encouraged up to 48 others to send similar letters, threatening that the recipients could or would face civil and/or criminal liability if they (i) required face-coverings and carried out routine lateral flow tests for schoolchildren; or (ii) facilitated the school-age children Covid vaccination programme. Those threats were misleading.

When making the threats, the respondent had improperly sought to rely upon her standing and role as a solicitor. By reason of any one or more of those matters the respondent had breached (i) paragraph 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; and  (ii) principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The respondent had been strongly motivated by her individual sense of what she thought was right and had taken action to protect against potential harm to children. She had used her status as a solicitor to add weight to her cause and either had given no thought to the risk of doing so or, if she had, had gone ahead regardless of the risk.

The respondent’s actions had been carried out within the context of a planned operation. The letters had been sent with the intention of conveying implied threats of retributive legal action, although the respondent had said that there had been no intention on her part to follow up on the matters set out in the letters.

There was no evidence of actual harm caused to anyone, although the potential for harm had been present. The harm to the reputation of the profession by a solicitor using her membership of the profession as a tactical ploy was not insignificant and the extent of the harm that was intended or might reasonably have been foreseen to be caused by the respondent’s misconduct was clear. She had invoked her professional standing at the expense of the public’s confidence in the profession.

The respondent’s misconduct was such that she had fallen far short of the standards expected of a solicitor and in the circumstances the level of seriousness of the misconduct was high.

The most appropriate sanction would be a fine of £2,500. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for nine months from 7 August 2024. 

While in practice as a partner at Taylor Rose TTKW, the respondent had instructed person A (a junior colleague) to send an amended email to client A containing information which was misleading and which was intended to mislead, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent had accepted that the substance of the email was misleading and that it was intended to mislead. The respondent had instructed person A to send the amended email. It was clear that he had intended the amended email to be sent.

He was an experienced solicitor in a leadership role. The act of dishonesty was an isolated incident. He had been motivated, in his words, to ‘not be shouted at’ by his client.

An aggravating feature of the respondent’s misconduct was that it had had a ‘devastating impact’ on person A. She had described the incident as heavily impacting upon her mental health and wellbeing. Immediately after the incident, she had asked to move to a different office within the firm. She had stated that she required support for her mental health and had considered carefully whether she had a future in the legal profession for fear of a similar incident happening in future. Person A had reported finding it hard to trust colleagues and described being ‘extremely cautious at work’ since the incident.

A finding that an allegation of dishonesty had been proved ordinarily led to an order striking the solicitor from the roll, save in exceptional circumstances.

The dishonesty had been between the respondent and person A only, had lasted for a 90-minute period, was not premeditated, had not been continued in that the offending email had not in fact been sent to client A, and had not prejudiced the underlying transaction.

For the above reasons, the SDT had found exceptional circumstances in the case: in place of a striking-off from the roll, it was appropriate to suspend the respondent from practice for nine months.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £20,723.

The respondent had failed, adequately or at all to: (i) comply with rules 1.1 and 2.1 of the SRA Transparency Rules 2018; (ii) comply with conditions on authorisation imposed by an SRA adjudicator on 11 August 2022; (iii) have an individual designated as its compliance officer for legal practice in accordance with rule 8.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules; and (iv) have an individual designated as its compliance officer for finance and administration in accordance with rule 8.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules 2019.

By reason of such failures, the respondent had breached rules 1.1 and 2.1 of the 2018 rules; paragraph 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2019; rule 8.1 of the 2019 rules; and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 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 respondent had admitted the allegations. 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 breaches had not been deliberate, but had been caused by a period of transformation the respondent had been undergoing at the relevant time. However, it was not acceptable at any time for the attention of the COLP (and other senior team members) to have been diverted by other activities and away from issues of core importance.

While it had taken too long to rectify the problems, the respondent regretted that insufficient attention had been paid to those important issues; it had not gained any advantage because of the breaches, financially or otherwise, and no harm had been caused to any person, nor had any advantage been taken of any person by reason of the misconduct.

The respondent had cooperated with the SRA throughout and had been open in all its dealings with the SRA, including an early admission of the breaches.

In all the circumstances of the case, the SDT agreed it was proportionate and in the public interest that the respondent should be fined £20,723.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

The SDT ordered that for five years from 19 August 2024, except in accordance with Law Society permission (through the Solicitors Regulation Authority): (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.

The respondent had been guilty of conduct of such a nature that in the opinion of the SRA it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in that, while a registered foreign lawyer and member of Bird & Bird LLP (UK) and Bird & Bird LLP (Belgium), he had pursued a course of conduct which he knew or ought to have known was unwanted and inappropriate towards person B which included (i) engaging in conduct towards her as set out in an attached schedule; (ii) sending WhatsApp messages which were inappropriate in both volume and content, including those messages set out in a second attached schedule; (iii) touching her in such a way, on any or all of the occasions, as set out in a third attached schedule, thereby breaching overseas principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Overseas Rules 2013.

His conduct as described above was sexually motivated and an abuse of position.

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 was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The admitted conduct was undoubtedly serious enough to warrant the regulatory control over the respondent which a section 43 order would provide. The respondent’s level of culpability was high. He was an experienced lawyer who at the time of the misconduct had been a partner at the firm. He had been in a position of authority and influence, and had used his seniority to take advantage of a junior female consultant.

The aggravating features of the respondent’s conduct were that the misconduct had been repeated, persisting over a period of two months, and had amounted to an abuse of power and position of authority. It had also included a sexual element.

The public interest would be adequately protected by the imposition of a section 43 order for a period of five years. The respondent had not worked for a firm regulated by the SRA since 23 July 2019 and had not been an RFL since 31 October 2019.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £36,000.

On 13 November 2024, the SRA intervened into the recognised sole practice of Richard John Tinkler, including but not limited to Tinkler Solicitors Ltd, formally of Second Floor, Sproughton House, Sproughton, Ipswich IP8 3AW. The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Tinkler as a manager of Tinkler Solicitors in connection with his practice at Tinkler Solicitors (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former or potential clients of Mr Tinkler (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX, (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.

Mr Tinkler’s practising certificate was suspended by reason of the intervention.

On 13 November 2024 the SRA intervened into the recognised body of Tinkler Solicitors Ltd, of 40 High Street, Needham Market, Ipswich IP6 8AP

The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).
• Alternatively, to exercise powers of intervention into the firm because the firm, a limited company authorised as a recognised body, has had its authorisation revoked and no further recognition of it has been granted (paragraph 34(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

Mr Tinkler’s practising certificate was suspended by reason of the intervention.

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX, (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.

On 22 October 2024, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the practice of Fathima Jeinulabdeen, including but not limited to her practice at Jein Solicitors and/or her freelance practice at 3-5 Lee High Road, Lewisham, London SE13 5LD.

The grounds for intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Jeinulabdeen’s part in connection with her practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• There had been a failure by Jeinulabdeen to comply with rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Emma Sellars of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0399; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com) has been instructed as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 24 October 2024.

Jeinulabdeen’s current practising certificate was suspended as a result of the intervention.