A firm owner has been suspended for one month after he employed a legal assistant who had section 43 restrictions imposed on his employment. 

SRA

Source: Jonathan Goldberg

Oliver James Saxon, admitted in May 2012, was alleged in 2021 to have failed to ensure that Tyto Law Limited, of which he was owner, director, manager, and compliance officer, complied with a section 43 order that no recognised body should employ or remunerate Ben Moore except with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s permission.

Saxon was also accused of failing to provide accurate information to the SRA in an application form seeking the regulator’s permission to employ Moore, causing or permitting the firm to continue to employ or remunerate Moore in ‘knowing contravention’ of the restriction and failing to ensure the conditions imposed by the SRA on its approval of Moore’s employment were met.

Saxon admitted all the allegations.

Moore was employed via an agency at Tyto Law, in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, without the SRA's permission, the outcome states. After an application was made by Saxon for permission, but before it had been granted, Moore continued to provide work as a temporary locum will writer to the firm. 

In mitigation, not endorsed by the SRA, Saxon said he was not aware of the s43 order when Moore was first engaged in June 2021. He became aware the following month and immediately made an application for approval. While the application form had not been completed correctly, Saxon said he ‘did not deliberately set out to mislead the SRA’ and no client had been ‘negatively affected’ or suffered any loss.

In an agreed outcome, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal approved the suggested sanction of a month-long suspension and said it was ‘satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Saxon’s admissions were properly made’.

The SDT said it was appropriate for the suspension to begin on 1 August 2025 to give Saxon sufficient time to find a replacement for his period of suspension in order to protect current clients. Saxon was also ordered to pay £4,800 costs.

Topics