The head of a family law team accused of misleading his client into believing he had lodged an application for a decree nisi today apologised for his ‘high standards of work dropping’ - but denies the allegations against him.
Daniel Jones, admitted in August 2011, was a partner and head of the family law team of the now-closed Salford-firm Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP when he was instructed by Person A for what ‘should have been a straightforward divorce’, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard.
Jones told Person A he would apply for a decree nisi in either October or November 2019. In fact it was lodged a year later. Jones, who resigned from the firm in March 2021, told the three-person panel he had been responsible for the ‘vast majority’ of the department’s work and divided his time between the firm’s Liverpool, Manchester and London offices, spending most of his time in London.
He told the SDT that when he said in his emails to Person A that he would apply for the decree nisi ‘I meant I would arrange for it to take place. That was my intention’. When asked if he was offended when Person A accused Jones of lying, he said: ‘Extremely. I was very offended. I thought we had a good working relationship and I had not lied to her.’
Read more
Referring to an email in regard to the decree nisi, Jones said he wrote ‘that we were still waiting for it to come through, that the backlog was with the court’ which was ‘not unusual’. He added: ‘It [delays] was happening routinely at that point. There was a backlog with dealing with decree nisi, decree absolute and approving financial orders.’
Asked by Jon Goodwin, for Jones, if his standards of work may have dropped, Jones said: ‘Without a doubt and I am very sorry. I accept my high standards dropped, I was distracted, but I did not lie or mislead. I did not seek to mislead her or anyone.’
Jones denies that he misled his client between December 2019 and April 2021 into believing that he had lodged an application for a decree nisi on her behalf in October or November 2019 when he knew, or ought to have known, that was not true. He also denies that his behaviour was dishonest or reckless.
The hearing continues.
