Partner struck off for misleading probe into London trip expenses

A tribunal has found that an office managing partner did not ask his secretary to bill clients for a city break with his daughter – but that he was dishonest during the firm’s subsequent investigation.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal today found that George Panagopoulos, a former partner with international firm Reed Smith, altered documents prior to a meeting with bosses to discuss the London trip. He then claimed that these alterations were made months before, knowing that this was not the case.

Panagopoulos was today struck off by the tribunal and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs. A full judgment giving the tribunal’s reasons will be published in around seven weeks.

The tribunal heard over three days this week that Papagopoulos, who had been with Reed Smith for 18 years and was based in its Athens office, travelled with his school-age daughter to London in October 2019. The costs of the four-day trip, which included a stay at the exclusive Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall, a laundry bill, taxis from the airport and cabin allowance for four bags, were charged to three client accounts.

Papagopoulos accepted that these charges were made, and that the trip did not include any business meetings as he had planned, but contested the SRA’s specific allegation that he instructed his secretary to bill the clients for personal expenses. He told the tribunal this week that his secretary had mistakenly put through his daughter’s elements of the costs to the client accounts and that he had no intention of charging them.

That allegation was found not proved by the tribunal, but the SDT found two allegations proved in relation to a meeting with Reed Smith in 2020. Knowing he would be questioned about his expenses, the SRA alleged that Papagopoulos altered billing documents adding the words ‘reverse’ and ‘purge’ to indicate that the expenses should not be billed to the clients.

Papagopoulos had suggested he made the alterations soon after his trip and insisted there was ‘nothing sinister’ about the changes. He said he felt ‘insulted’ about being accused of expenses wrongdoing. He told the tribunal there was a ‘political dimension’ to the meeting and said this was ‘not an objective investigation’.

He added: ‘It was demoralising. I had one of the [Reed Smith] partners effectively saying I had gone on a trip with no business purpose and not told him.’

But the tribunal also heard that his former secretary, who was flown to London to give evidence in person after Papagopoulos objected to her appearing by video link, had taken a photograph of the billing documents at the time when the words were supposed to have been added, which showed no alterations. The inference, the SRA successfully argued, was that Papagopoulos had made the changes nearer to the time of his meeting and attempted to mislead colleagues about his actions immediately after the trip.

Following the verdict, the SRA argued that Papagopoulos should pay the costs in full as he could still practise in other jurisdictions. He is currently a principal of his own firm in Greece and has equity in a £500,000 property.