A former Blavo & Co partner has been quizzed over ‘identical’ mental health files in a High Court action seeking to recoup £22m from the director of the firm,  which was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2015.

Solicitor Lee-Ann Jennine Frampton-Anderson, who qualified in 2007 and became a salaried partner at Blavo in 2009, was questioned by barrister Rachel Sleeman, representing the lord chancellor, about files for two mental health patients on the third day of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Sleeman told Frampton-Anderson that, looking at the documents, 'you would think they were two separate individuals'. Frampton-Anderson agreed.

However, Sleeman said the patients' home and family circumstances, were 'close to identical'. Frampton-Anderson replied: 'It's strange.' The patients' employment and accommodation details, were 'pretty much identical', Sleeman said. Frampton-Anderson replied: 'They're very similar.' Telephone attendance notes were 'effectively identical' about how the patient was feeling, Sleeman said. Frampton-Anderson agreed, but said that she did not find this so unusual.

Sleeman told Frampton-Anderson that the similarities between the two files were 'unusual to say the least - sufficient for you to think one of these files might not be genuine?' Frampton-Anderson replied: 'I do find it strange.' Pressed again about whether the files were genuine, Frampton-Anderson said: 'It's difficult for me to answer that question. Filing errors do happen. But the information is very similar.'

During cross-examination, Frampton-Anderson told the court that the name of a patient on HMCTS records or on the firm's file was not always the name used by parties at a mental health tribunal hearing. She said patients 'sometimes want to forget their identity, assume an identity'. The firm would sometimes 'find out quite late in the case' what the patient's proper name was.

Addressing the firm’s difficulties in retrieving files, Sleeman suggested ‘in large part the real reasons for the difficulty for retrieving any file if they existed is because [Blavo & Co] had inadequate IT systems’. Frampton-Anderson disagreed, telling the court the firm was ‘growing and expanding’.

Further details about a burglary at the firm's London office on 29 August 2015 - less than a month after the firm was notified by the Legal Aid Agency that it had begun an investigation - emerged on Friday.

Frampton-Anderson said the firm was told by the IT department that two servers had been removed. ‘In terms of how the office looked, it was awful,’ she recalled. ‘Files had been opened and torn, shredded bins had been opened and scattered. It was havoc. It seemed vindictive.’ There was ‘significant’ water damage. Frampton-Anderson said: ‘The wallpaper had to be replaced. Light fixtures had fallen off. It was not just damaged. It was flooded.’

Frampton-Anderson recalled a conversation in August 2015 about the overuse of new matter starts. Sleeman said: ‘But as far as the [LAA’s] official investigation was concerned, by 29 August 2015 you were not aware. 29 August was a Saturday. You would come back [after the Bank Holiday] and all John Blavo [the firm's director] told you about was a request for files. You thought they were for an audit. He did not tell you an official investigation had started. You say he subsequently told you because you got a letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority on 2 October 2015.’

Frampton-Anderson told the court the SRA's letter was an ‘early intervention letter, an early warning letter’.

Discussing the LAA’s demand to see files, Frampton-Anderson said the agency ‘could have acted differently’. She said: ‘We were the second largest mental health firm. The public interest would have been better served by keeping the firm open… There was no regard of our delivering services to vulnerable individuals, a lot of fee-earners’ time had to be about dedicating time taking instructions.’ Frampton-Anderson said the agency could have done more to assist the firm: ‘I felt they took a very hard line.’

The hearing continues.