A solicitor who successfully fended off a misconduct case brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority has nevertheless been ordered to pay nearly £11,000 in the costs of the case.
David Mark Turner, formerly a partner at Kitson Boyce but now of Nexa Law, was accused of dishonestly providing misleading information to a small building firm, identified as Client A, by failing to inform them of the true outcome of a summary judgment hearing against them.
The client was engaged in a contractual dispute over work it had carried out and following a hearing in January 2019 a note from counsel to Turner said: ‘the hearing went against the clients today’.
Despite this note, Turner told the client in emails that ‘[the Judge] did not give much away’ and ‘It is difficult to make the call either way at this point’. He later self-reported to the regulator and said he had been unhappy with some of his phrasing, describing it as ‘foolish, clumsy and a misstatement’.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Turner’s communication with the client to be misleading based on the note from counsel, but said the solicitor had not acted dishonestly, stating elements of the communication from counsel ‘were ambiguous and unclear’ and Turner honestly believed he wanted to see a written judgment before giving firm advice to his client.
The SDT also referred to a number of character references, including one from his client who described Turner as ‘considerate, frank, and objective in difficult circumstances’ and said he should not suffer.
Despite the SDT's dismissal of the allegations, the SRA applied for costs of £30,630 for bringing the case. It was awarded costs of £10,854 for essential work.
'The allegation had been dismissed however the applicant’s case was properly brought’, the judgment states. 'The tribunal had made findings criticising the respondent who, to his credit, accepted some of the shortcomings identified. Albeit the tribunal concluded that these shortcomings did not amount to professional misconduct. The applicant had been required to bring its case having been fixed with information available at the time of its application and it was therefore appropriate for the tribunal to award costs in its favour.'
Turner has been approached for comment.
