George Tierney, Adam Tierney and Julian Tierney
- Application 10322-2009
- Hearing 13 May 2010
- Reasons 9 June 2010
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1966), c/o Jonathan Goodwin, 17e Telford Court, Telford, Chester Gates, Chester CH1 6LT, should be reprimanded; that the second respondent (admitted 1995), c/o the same address, should pay a fine of £1,500; and that as from 16 August 2010, except in accordance with Law Society permission: (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with his practice as a solicitor, the third respondent, c/o Russell Jones & Walker, Solicitors, 50-52 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HL; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with the solicitor’s practice the said third respondent; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the said third respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the said third respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the said third respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the said third respondent to have an interest in the body.
The third respondent, having been employed or remunerated by solicitors but not himself being a solicitor had been a party to acts or defaults in relation to a solicitor’s practice which had involved conduct on his behalf such that it would be undesirable for him to be employed or remunerated by a solicitor in connection with that practice, and in particular he had been responsible for the creation of a file entry which purportedly was a contemporaneous record but which had in fact been created or altered after the event; and he had been responsible for the creation of a copy letter purportedly sent to a lay client but which had in fact been created or altered after the event. The first and second respondents had failed to report the misconduct of an unadmitted fee earner promptly or at all. The SDT noted that the third respondent accepted that the order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 should be made in respect of him and the SDT accepted that little was to be gained by an argument as to the basis of such order, the purpose of which was to regulate the third respondent’s employment within the solicitors’ profession. Having regard to the documentary evidence before it the SDT found the allegation against the first and second respondents to have been substantiated. They had had the requisite belief regarding the third respondent’s conduct at the relevant time (as had been partially admitted) and should have made a report of those events to the Law Society. The SDT had been asked to decide as a matter of fact if the third respondent had created the attendance note and/or the letter after the event.
The SDT found that the second respondent believed that that was the case, as he had set out in his defence statement. The SDT was not satisfied that the first respondent also so believed, but accepted his admission as to his belief that the attendance note, which on its face was dated 25 November 2000, was a contemporaneous note; that, when he was checking the file, the third respondent had noticed that the date written on the note was 25 November but the year had been omitted; that the third respondent had filled in the year but had written ‘2000’ in error; and that the note had been drawn in 1998. The nature of the conduct which the SDT found to have been established should have been reported by the first and second respondents as principals in a solicitors’ firm to the Law Society. They had had a professional obligation to do so. In failing to make that report, they had not ensured that the best interests of the public and the solicitors’ profession were served. The SDT took into account the long period of time which had passed from the happening of the events in question and, indeed, the correspondence which had taken place between the respondents’ representatives and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The SDT noted the previous unblemished history of the respondents and their firm and had taken into account the excellent written references provided to it and the oral evidence as to their good character and the esteem in which they were held in their local professional and wider community.
The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £7,000 on the basis of joint and several liability; the third respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.
