A solicitor has been cleared of dishonesty after admitting to altering a document while serving her notice.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal accepted that Sarah Reynolds was trying to progress outstanding work to completion before she left south-east firm Parfitt Cresswell in 2022.
With a couple of weeks until her notice period was up, it was discovered that due to an oversight she had failed to register a lasting power of attorney for a client. The client had signed a cheque for £82 dated January 2021, and Reynolds admitted altering the year within the cheque date to 2022. She also added two sentences to the original drafted letter, stating she had amended the LPA to prevent rejection by the Office of the Public Guardian.
The changes were made without the client’s approval, and the altered letter and cheque were sent to the OPG. But the tribunal found Reynolds did not send or cause either document to be sent: instead she had believed the work would be returned to her for checking and review before being sent. She had also believed she would be able to visit the client and have the changes authorised.
The tribunal found that ordinary decent people would not find Reynolds’ action of pre-emptively changing the date to be dishonest, although it was ‘admittedly improper and unwise’.
It accepted her evidence as consistent, truthful and credible, noting that Reynolds felt a ‘strong sense of loyalty’ to clients and did all she could to resolve issues, working into the early hours on occasion to complete tasks. The tribunal said she was ‘seeking perfection’ which sometimes led to her acting impulsively. She was also caring for two children who had diagnosed medical conditions and had other caring responsibilities against a heavy professional workload.
Reynolds, a solicitor since 2007, presented 13 references, including one from a former supervisor. All reinforced the tribunal’s view that she ‘did not appear to have a disposition to act dishonestly’.
She was fined £5,500 and ordered to pay £11,750 costs. The SRA had applied initially for costs of £23,550, but her representative pointed out it had been disproportionate for the regulator to have seven fee-earners working on a ‘straightforward case involving a dispute on a single discrete issue’.
