![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
A solicitor who filed a misleading defence to a barrister’s civil claim for unpaid costs has agreed to be fined by the tribunal.
Paul Fitton admitted allowing the defence to be filed with the Central London County Court stating incorrectly that the lay client had liability for the sums involved.
He then failed to correct this mistake for five months by not applying to withdraw or amend the defence.
The statement admitting the defence was wrongly served was finally filed three days before the substantive hearing was due to be held.
Her Honour Judge Roberts said it was ‘disgraceful’ that Fitton, an officer of the court, had filed a defence that he was not entitled to do so, and went on to order full costs against him.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Fitton, who was admitted in 2013, was in practice with north west-based McHale & Co in 2019 when the firm failed to settle an invoice worth £2,160 with the unnamed barrister.
Civil proceedings were commenced, and Fitton initially emailed the barrister directly asking for an extension of time to file a defence. When the defence was filed, Fitton denied the firm was indebted to the barrister and said the outstanding sum was owed by the firm’s client, who had been chased for payment.
The barrister’s lawyers responded to say that the defence ‘potentially amounts to misleading the court and a breach of the SRA code of conduct’, and asked for the matter to be passed to the firm’s senior partner.
Fitton responded by accepting that the defence was inaccurate, but despite this acknowledgement the defence was not withdrawn or amended for some months. Fitton later said that he had acted to prevent a judgment being entered against the firm, which would have had a negative effect on its credit rating and could in turn have contributed to the loss of jobs.
In mitigation to the tribunal, Fitton offers his genuine and sincere apology for what occurred and pointed out he had an exemplary regulatory history.
He agreed a £7,500 fine with the SRA and to pay £10,000 costs.
