Anona Mair Williams

• Application 10861-2011
• Admitted 1988
• Hearing 21 February 2012
• Reasons 14 March 2012

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £3,000.

In relation to client NJ, the respondent had failed to act towards the Legal Complaints Service in an open, prompt and co-operative way, in breach of rule 20.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 by failing to respond to correspondence from them dated 25 January 2010; she had acted otherwise than in accordance with rule 1.02 of the 2007 code by indicating during a telephone call with an LCS caseworker on 22 February 2010 that a response to the LCS letter of 25 January 2010 was ‘on its way’, whereas no response had ever been received by the LCS; she had acted otherwise than in accordance with rule 1.06 of the 2007 code by failing to comply with a decision of the LCS dated 5 March 2010 which required her to release all files of papers and ledger cards relating to her instructions from client NJ; and she had failed to act towards the SRA in an open, prompt and co-operative way, in breach of rule 20.05 of the 2007 code by failing to respond to correspondence from the SRA dated 16 July 2010 and 18 August 2010.

In relation to client ZM, she had failed to act towards the LCS in an open, prompt and co-operative way, in breach of rule 20.05 of the 2007 code by failing to respond to correspondence from it dated 12 August 2010; she had acted otherwise than in accordance with rule 1.06 of the 2007 code by failing to comply with the decision of the LCS dated 16 September 2010 which required her to release all files of papers and ledger cards relating to her instructions from client ZM; and she had failed to act towards the SRA in an open, prompt and co-operative way in breach of rule 20.05 of the 2007 code by failing to respond to correspondence from the SRA dated 3 February 2011 and 22 February 2011.

While the SDT had been concerned by the respondent’s failure to engage with the LCS and the applicant, it acknowledged that the breaches had occurred during a period of significant personal and professional difficulties for the respondent. The SDT was aware that the respondent had only very recently instructed counsel to represent her before the SDT and considered that that late instruction for her defence had been indicative of her situation.

The SDT considered that, had the respondent been ‘on the ball’, she would have previously engaged with her regulator and taken steps immediately to prepare her defence. The SDT had considered all sanctions available to it, but in view of the mitigation on behalf of the respondent and having taken a reasonable and proportionate view, the SDT ordered that she should pay a fine.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,000.