A solicitor who acted for both the claimant and the defendant in a civil case has been suspended from practice for six months.
Satnam Singh Talwar, director and owner of Queens Court Law and compliance officer for legal practice at the firm, had been instructed by Client A on 28 July 2021 to recover monies owed by a Ms L, against whom Client A obtained judgment on 8 July 2022.
But just four days later, Ms L also instructed QC Law to set aside judgment, becoming Client B. Talwar signed and filed an application to set aside the judgment obtained by Client A against Client B.
A litigation paralegal in the firm had sent an internal email to Talwar on 14 July 2022, drawing his attention to the Code of Conduct and providing a link to Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance on conflicts of interest.
On 22 July 2022 - just over a week later - Client A instructed QC Law to enforce the default judgment against Client B, and the firm instructed a debt enforcement agency, Equivo, to recover the debt.
By 10 August 2022, the firm had emailed Equivo - with Talwar copied in - asking it to cease the enforcement action, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found.
The SDT judgment said: ‘Equivo emailed the firm declining instructions on behalf of Client A on the basis that the firm was clearly conflicted and stating that the same firm cannot act for both the claimant and defendant in litigation.’
A paralegal at QC Law called the SRA ethics helpline in October 2022 and informed Talwar the regulator had given advice that a single firm should not be instructed for both claimant and defendant in litigation and it was a firm wide obligation to avoid conflicts of interest.
The retainers with Client A and Client B were terminated by the firm on 12 October and 9 October 2022 respectively, but Talwar failed to self-report to the SRA, the SDT found. ‘His failure to self-report spoke volumes as to the respondent’s cavalier attitude to the rules of professional conduct though it was to be noted that his admissions now demonstrated an element of insight and contrition’, the judgement concluded.
