A junior lawyer who falsely recorded 100 hours on four client matters as she struggled to bill enough hours has been struck off the roll of solicitors.
Clare Forster, admitted in 2019 and formerly with national firm Hudgell Solicitors, claimed she had been ‘simply overwhelmed’ as she tried to meet her target. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal panel ‘expressed sympathy’ for the personal circumstances and pressures that contributed to her conduct. But the tribunal stressed that individuals ‘bore a professional responsibility to seek assistance before actions spiralled into serious misconduct’.
‘This was not a case of a momentary lapse in which corrective action had been taken quickly,’ said the tribunal. ‘The misconduct was sustained over five months, involved multiple client matters, and included deliberate concealment. Whilst the mitigation was genuine and substantial, it was not sufficient to bring the case within the very small residual category in which striking off would be disproportionate.’
Forster joined Hudgells in 2022 as a clinical negligence solicitor. As a fee-earner, the firm expected her to record 125 chargeable client matters per month, in order to reach 1,500 client matter hours per year.
Within six months of joining, her manager noted that she was working late into the evening on client matters: Forster said she was aware she was not meeting her targets and was working late to do so. The tribunal heard that between November 2022 and April 2023, she averaged only 87.7 chargeable hours per month, a shortfall of approximately 30%.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority, prosecuting, said that the firm adopted a ‘supportive and measured approach’ to Forster's performance difficulties. It ceased to allocate her new cases to allow her to focus on her existing caseload and set a reduced target of 100 chargeable hours for June 2023. The head of clinical negligence assured her it was entirely acceptable for tasks to take her longer to complete.
But her time recording fell even further during 2023 and Forster reported personal difficulties which led to a short period of sick leave.
In November 2023, she recorded 43 units of time on a client matter which she later admitted had never been carried out. She claimed at the time that the corresponding file note was lost due to an IT issue. Forster had earlier recorded 55 units for an attendance note which was subsequently found to contain just the date and file reference number. Another recording of 16 hours was made for work on three separate documents despite none of these documents being touched.
When questioned about blank documents for which she claimed hours, she admitted that she had recorded time for work she had intended to complete later, attributing her conduct to the pressure of meeting time-recording targets.
Forster admitted acting dishonestly but argued against a strike-off on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Her representative cited ‘significant personal challenges’ which had a profound and lasting effect on her mental health. She considered that the firm had imposed ‘unreasonable and oppressive demands’, requiring staff to log their activities in detail throughout the working day.
Her representative submitted that her time-recording patterns, which included entries made late at night and at weekends, ought to have been a red flag to the firm that she was struggling.
The tribunal accepted that Forster caused no client to suffer financial or procedural loss but said would be expected to know that falsifying timesheets was a serious breach of professional standards. While there was substantial mitigation through difficult personal circumstances and ‘significant’ workplace pressure, the dishonesty was deliberate, calculated and repeated, and her mental issues had not impaired her ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Forster was struck off and ordered to pay £25,000 costs.
