A law firm has been publicly censured by a district judge after claiming to represent a client it had not even spoken to for months.
At an adjourned family court hearing earlier this month, west London firm Ash Solicitors admitted it had no instructions to go on the record as the husband’s representative in a financial remedies hearing set for February this year.
The firm did not possess evidence for making an assertion about the husband’s mental health in a statement to the court. And it had forwarded a remote link for the original hearing to a social worker without the court’s permission or even knowledge.
Ruling in Pool v Pool, Deputy District Judge Hales said he was so concerned about the firm’s conduct that he considered it appropriate to deliver and publish a written judgment.
‘It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary,’ said Hales. ‘As a result of their behaviour, Ash Solicitors essentially misled the court into believing (a) that they had instructions to represent the husband in these proceedings, which they had never had; and (b) that the husband lacked capacity, a statement for which they had no evidence whatsoever.
‘I do not mean to suggest that the court was misled deliberately, or that Ash Solicitors had anything to gain from their behaviour. But it betrays carelessness, ignorance of the rules and, it is not too strong to say, utter incompetence on their behalf.’
The court heard that the husband and wife had instructed solicitors after the end of their 20-year marriage to decide on outstanding financial matters.
Before the financial remedies hearing in February, Ash Solicitors went ‘on record’ as acting for the husband and filed and served a document headed ‘respondent husband’s position statement’.
That document confirmed the statement had been prepared on behalf of the husband and that it was ‘common knowledge that H suffers from mental health and was hospitalised’. It added that the husband was in no fit mental state to take part in proceedings and that his lack of participation was not intentional.
Despite being on the record, Ash Solicitors did not attend the February hearing and failed to contact the court to explain its absence. The proceedings were adjourned until this month to allow for a medical report to be prepared.
Ahead of this month’s hearing, a lawyer from Ash Solicitors filed a statement confirming that the firm had not been able to contact the husband before telling the court he had mental health issues. It then emerged at the hearing that the lawyer tasked with dealing with the court was a solicitor apprentice.
The judge adjourned the hearing to see whether a firm partner could be located. Veronica Lartey from Ash Solicitors then attended and confirmed the firm had proceeded in February with no instructions from the husband - indeed, the firm had not heard from him since mid-2025.
The judge said the mistakes made by the solicitor apprentice – including inviting a third party to a confidential remote hearing – were a ‘further poor reflection on the firm, as it betrays their failure to ensure proper and competent supervision of non-admitted staff’.
He added: ‘It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to publish a judgment including such criticism of members of the legal profession. I would hope that this judgment leads to those involved reflecting upon their conduct, seeking further training or guidance, and ensuring that their clients receive a significantly improved level of service in the future.’
