![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 created time records which were ‘inaccurate’ and ‘misleading’ has been struck off. Matthew Nester, admitted in July 2021, admitted being in breach of Principles 2 and 5 but denied that his conduct was dishonest.
However the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found, in creating time records in excess of the time worked, Nester’s conduct was dishonest and misleading.
The judgment states: ‘Given the seriousness of its findings, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike Mr Nester off the roll of solicitors.’
Hugh James Solicitors, Nester’s firm at the time, made a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority following a review of a closed file. A partner noticed Nester had recorded five units, adding up to 30 minutes, of time on the file for a quarterly review which ‘was unusual because, firstly, the file was closed and secondly, it was not part of Mr Nester’s role to conduct quarterly file reviews’.
Following an investigation, the firm terminated Nester’s employment and reported him to the SRA. Nester self-reported shortly after. He ‘admitted the conduct and explained why he had behaved as he did’.
The judgment states: ‘Given Mr Nester’s state of knowledge…Mr Nester was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. Whilst the tribunal did not doubt that Mr Nester intended to undertake that work on some future date, it did not accept that when creating the time records, Mr Nester genuinely believed that it was permissible to record time for work that he had not done.’
The tribunal noted the time recorded was for administrative work that would not have been charged to clients.
It said: ‘Ordinary and reasonable people would consider that a solicitor who fabricated time on a file, in order to make his employer believe that he had done more work than he actually had, was dishonest.’
Ordering the strike-off, the tribunal added: ‘All solicitors, irrespective of their experience, knew that it was improper to record time for work that had not been performed.
No costs order was made.
