Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a solicitor at MSP Legal Services LLP, the respondent had made statements to his client as to the instruction of a barrister in relation to proceedings which he was conducting on his client’s behalf which were untrue and were likely to mislead and which he knew, or ought to have known, were liable to have that effect, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made a statement to representatives of the proposed defendant in his client’s matter as to having received views of a barrister purportedly instructed on behalf of his client, which

was untrue and was likely to mislead and which he knew, or ought to have known, was liable to have that effect, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made statements to his client’s son as to the listing of a hearing in relation to the proceedings he was conducting on his client’s behalf, which were untrue and were likely to mislead and which he knew, or ought to have known, were liable to have that effect, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had made admissions to serious allegations predicated on misleading a client, an opposing party to litigation and the client’s son. While he had denied the aggravating feature of dishonesty, the SDT had found that he had acted dishonestly on numerous occasions.

He had alluded, during the course of the investigation and in his oral submissions to the SDT, to personal circumstances and health issues at the material time but had neither adduced any medical evidence to support his submissions, nor given evidence in relation to them.

Given that dishonesty had been found proved, only exceptional circumstances could justify a sanction other than a strike-off. No such circumstances had been advanced by Jones.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £9,970.