A solicitor who deleted an email chain linking her to a client complaint has avoided being struck off. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Heather Roberts had acted dishonestly but ruled that she fell into the small group of cases where a permanent ban was not required.
Roberts, a senior associate with national firm Irwin Mitchell, told the tribunal she was in a ‘haze’ at the time of the misconduct due to worsening health and demanding working conditions. She felt she was approaching burnout.
While the tribunal found Roberts to have been dishonest, this did not mean she was a dishonest person, and a one-year suspension was deemed sufficient sanction. Roberts’ dishonesty was 'limited in duration' and the tribunal was prepared to accept it had been a ‘moment of madness’ on her part at a time when she had been moving into a zone of ill health. 'She acted wholly out of character.'
Roberts had been admitted for two and a half years when she was promoted to senior associate in February 2020. The Solicitors Regulation Authority probe began when Irwin Mitchell reported her conduct in February 2022. She left the firm three weeks later.
It was alleged that Roberts deleted five email chains from the case management system in relation to matters that led to a client complaint. The deleted email chains were between Roberts and a colleague and were found in the colleague’s inbox but not on the client file. The recycle bin on the file showed that Roberts had deleted them.
The client had complained over concerns that particulars of claim had been substantially amended without counsel’s approval. A week before the emails were deleted, an Irwin Mitchell partner had asked Roberts for a full chronology and a complete history of correspondence.
Roberts’ reply included the chronology but did not refer to the now-deleted emails or make reference to her involvement.
Roberts, who was represented by Manchester firm Winley Ford Solicitors and Christopher Hamlet of 23 Essex Street Chambers. accepted she deleted the emails but denied this was a dishonest attempt to conceal her involvement in the case. She claimed that despite raising concerns about burnout with a partner, her workload had not been reduced. She suffered chest pains and was often tearful in the office before she was signed off work with stress shortly after the emails were deleted.
The tribunal said her actions had been a ‘deliberate and dishonest attempt’ to help shape the narrative and she had lacked integrity. But there was no direct harm to any client and only moderate harm to the reputation of the profession. Roberts had pointed to an unblemished career and numerous character references, which the tribunal accepted showed that she was held in high regard by colleagues and clients. The tribunal noted she had been struggling with the volume of work, and she may have been unwell at the relevant time.
She was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay almost £25,000 in costs.
