A former partner with City firm Jones Day who was found to be in criminal contempt of court has been suspended for two years by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Raymond John McKeeve, who apologised to the tribunal for his actions, was found, while in practice as a registered foreign lawyer, to have given instructions of ‘burn it’ or words similar in respect of electronic material held by his client. This instruction led to a High Court finding in 2022 that he was criminally liable for contempt of court.
The SDT heard today that, in an agreed statement of facts, McKeeve admitted the allegation against him. It also granted an anonymity application over the naming of McKeeve's client and others, who are named in Ocado Group PLC & Anor v Raymond McKeeve [2022], parts of which were read out during today's hearing.
Tom Walker, for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said McKeeve's client had been involved ‘in an online grocery business and engaged Person C who at the time was still employed by O’. The employer became suspicious that Person C had shared confidential information in breach of his employment contract and obtained a search order. After McKeeve was informed of the search order, he messaged the IT manager saying ‘burn it’. The IT manager deleted the app through which McKeeve, his client and others including Person C had messaged.
While McKeeve’s conduct was ‘limited in scope’, Walker said: ‘This is a serious case involving a very serious failure which impacted on the administration of justice and led to a finding of criminal contempt.’
Read more
The tribunal heard that McKeeve gave the instruction because of previous use of his wife's name as a pseudonym in the messages, which he had objected to.
Walker added: ‘The High Court did not find this was a sustained attempt to mislead or conceal and, although it did impede due administration of justice, there is no evidence that any actual confidential material or activity was concealed by virtue of the respondent’s actions.'
In mitigation, McKeeve, who represented himself, said: ‘Clearly the findings of the High Court have concluded that my standards fell below that which would be expected of me. I recognise that failure and accept it, that is on my shoulders. I would like to, as I did with the High Court, apologise to the tribunal on the most absolute terms for what was an isolated act of, I think the High Court judge described it, as monumental stupidity'. He continued: 'The very thing I tried to stop happening ended up getting more publicity.’
McKeeve added: ‘I hope you will see this was an isolated incident of abject stupidity. I am heartbroken the career I have pursued has effectively been, through my own actions, taken away from me.’
The SDT found the allegation against McKeeve proved, finding he was in breach of principles one, two, and six, as well as paragraph 5.4 of the 2011 code ‘in relation to the fact Mr McKeeve…was convicted of the criminal offence of contempt of court’. The SDT suspended McKeeve for a period of two years to commence on 23 March 2026 and ordered him pay £20,000 costs.
