A solicitor who was found with cocaine twice has had conditions on his right to practice lifted by a tribunal, which was impressed by his ‘genuine remorse’. Matthew Podger, admitted on 15 March 2013, had received a first police caution for possession of cocaine on 27 April 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal noted.
Podger, who had initially trained at Slaughter and May, qualifying into the financing team in March 2013, reported the caution immediately to his employer and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which issued a letter of advice on 27 November 2014, but took no further action.
When Podger joined Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (CGSH) in March 2016, he disclosed his 2014 caution before starting. But on 9 March 2018, he accepted a second police caution for cocaine possession and did not disclose it either to CGSH or the SRA.
CGSH discovered the existence of the second caution after receiving an anonymous letter on 11 January 2019. Podger - who cited ‘extreme personal and professional pressure, including marital difficulties’ as his reason for not disclosing the caution - was suspended and resigned three days later.
In May 2020, a tribunal had imposed a one-year suspension on Podger with indefinite conditions on his practicing certificate.
In a decision published on Tuesday, Podger persuaded the SDT to lift the conditions, arguing he has since rehabilitated, had fully complied with all conditions, including disclosure and regular drug testing, and had ‘received positive occupational health assessments and strong employer support’.
Podger had returned to legal practice as a senior associate at HCR Legal LLP in May 2023 and had consistently passed quarterly drug screenings and undergone occupational health assessments in May 2023 and May 2025.
The SDT ‘noted that he was now employed by a firm of solicitors who were fully aware of his background and who expressed their complete support for him in the light of that knowledge.
‘The tribunal was impressed by the applicant’s genuine remorse and found him to be a credible witness. He had fully acknowledged his past conduct and had taken the time to reflect upon it. His personal circumstances had changed significantly since the earlier matters, particularly in relation to his family life and the responsibilities now resting upon him.’
No comments yet