A partner who was dishonest twice within weeks of joining his new firm has failed to persuade a tribunal not to strike him off. Michael Lillywhite, admitted in February 2012 was found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have backdated a probate document to make it appear it was completed two months previously.
He also misled a different client when he sent a draft will to their old address and then assured them he had ‘checked the details, and all seems to be fine’.
Lillywhite argued that these were brief incidents of misconduct where he derived no personal or financial benefit and which occurred during a period of personal and professional stress. The tribunal accepted he experienced ‘significant’ mental health difficulties at the time and was of good character, but, balanced against the nature, scope and extent of the dishonesty, these did not amount to the exceptional circumstances needed to avoid strike-off.
It added: ‘The two dishonest acts occurred within a matter of weeks of each other and in different aspects of the [his] practice. Although the second act was less serious and of short duration, the fact that it followed so soon after the first demonstrated a pattern of conduct in which [he] chose to conceal the true position rather than act with the candour and transparency required of a solicitor.’
Lillywhite had joined Midlands firm George Green LLP in January 2023 and retained control of a file where probate had been granted and the estate’s property had been sold in the previous two months.
After moving firms, he emailed an executor attaching a draft memorandum of appropriation (MoA) in which the day and the month were left blank and the typed year ‘2023’ appeared. It was returned in February 2023 but when Lillywhite emailed the residuary beneficiary with the front pages of the MoA they bore the date 13 December 2022.
Lillywhite insisted that he had not intended to mislead but was ‘not in a rational state of mind’ and acted in panic and haste.
On the second matter, where he misleadingly said he had checked details of an email and found no issue, he said this had been written very quickly in response to a client enquiry.
The tribunal found his conduct was dishonest, even given his limited recollection of the events which showed his memory and judgement were impaired.
In mitigation, Lillywhite said the conduct was out of character in an otherwise unblemished 14-year career. He was now in a more settled position in his personal life and evidence from his current employer showed he had three years of satisfactory practice since the events in question.
The tribunal ordered that he be struck off and should pay £15,000 costs.
