Decisions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Jackamans Solicitors, between approximately February 2013 and August 2016, the respondent had: (i) instructed process servers other than in accordance with paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 of the Legal Aid Agency Costs Assessment Guidance; and (ii) had instructed process servers with whom she had a pre-existing, personal relationship, thereby breaching principles 2, 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

While in practice as a solicitor at Levy & Co Solicitors, the respondent had, in a meeting on 20 July 2017, falsely claimed that she did not have a personal relationship with a process server, Person T, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles.

Between 21 June 2017 and 18 July 2017, the respondent had submitted inaccurate expense claims to Levy & Co, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles. She had acted dishonestly.

While in practice as a solicitor at Steed and Steed LLP, the respondent had, between February 2018 and May 2018, conducted reserved legal activity through an unauthorised body, namely UK Family Law Group, thereby breaching principles 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 1.2 of the code.

Between April 2018 and August 2018, she had failed to make legal aid applications on behalf of the following clients, despite instructions to do so: clients P and Q, thereby breaching principles 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 1.5 of the code.

Between April 2018 and August 2018, she had made false claims to either or both of clients P and Q that legal aid applications had been made on their behalf, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles.

Between 19 May 2018 and 11 June 2018, she had dishonestly submitted inaccurate expense claims to Steed and Steed LLP in relation to purported visits to client R on 19 May 2018 and 11 June 2018 or either of them, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles.

Having been admitted as a solicitor of the Senior Courts, she had failed to return client S’s marriage certificate, had dishonestly provided misleading information to client S in relation to a notice of severance for property S; and had inappropriately contacted client S and told her she had no right to complain about her, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.5 and 1.11 of the code.

Having been admitted as a solicitor of the Senior Courts, she had dishonestly caused or allowed false and/or misleading CVs to be submitted to potential employers on or around the following dates (or any of them): 10 January 2018; 12 June 2018; 4 July 2018; 19 October 2018; 7 August 2019, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles.

The respondent had been motivated by a desire to help her partners financially and put work their way. Her misconduct was planned. She had been in a very considerable position of trust.

The harm caused to individual clients was significant. The impact on the reputation of the profession of the respondent’s wide-ranging misconduct involving taking advantage of and harming vulnerable clients was deeply damaging.

The SDT was unable to identify any exceptional circumstances in the case and accordingly the only appropriate sanction, in order to ensure the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession, was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £74,429.