A family law solicitor who hired a private investigator to find out the address of a litigant in person which he then shared with his client has been fined £17,500.
Sole practitioner Clive Graham Wood, admitted in 1982, was alleged to have attempted to take unfair advantage of Person M’s position as a litigant in person by ‘repeatedly’ asking her for her contact details when he knew or ought to have known that she did not want to provide them and had no legal duty to do so.
He was also alleged to have obtained Person M’s contact details by instructing a private investigator. He then disclosed those details to his client when he knew or ought to have known Person M would not have consented to her details being obtained in such a way, and, under the Family Procedure Rules, Person M was entitled to withhold her contact details until directed to disclose them by a court order.
Wood denied both allegations in their entirety.
Representing himself during the day-and-a-half substantive hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Wood confirmed in cross examination he had instructed a tracing agent ‘at the specific instructions of my client’.
The three-person panel found both allegations proved but dismissed part of the second allegation that in obtaining Person M’s contact details by hiring a private investigator he had prevented the court from being able to properly determine whether such disclosure should be made.
Read more
Chair Alison Kellett gave short summary reasons for the tribunal’s findings. Kellett said: ‘This was a straightforward case in which the respondent has fundamentally misjudged the situation confronting him.’
The misjudgments were Wood’s assessment of his client following a phone and in-person meeting and his assessment of Person M that he did not consider her vulnerable.
The chair said there was ‘adequate and sufficient information in [Person M’s] email replies to the respondent to make clear she did not want to give her address’.
Wood ‘did not appreciate the seriousness’ of his conduct, the chair said, adding: ‘The tribunal saw no remorse or insight from the respondent in the course of his evidence.’
The tribunal made no finding in regard to the Solicitor Regulation Authority’s alternative case of recklessness.
Wood told the tribunal he has been a solicitor for almost 44 years and had an unblemished record. In mitigation, he said: ‘I cannot undo those misjudgments much as I would, at this stage, want to. Although you said I have not shown any insight or remorse, I inwardly feel I have learnt from this experience of the last three years while I have been under this investigation.
‘I am incredibly sorry. I wish I could have my time again and apply insight to the circumstances. I made the misjudgments honestly. I have to query whether I will be able to continue taking on this type of work if my judgment is so poor.’
Wood was ordered to pay a £17,500 fine and £15,000 costs.
