A solicitor who, while defending a client in criminal proceedings gave legal advice to the alleged victim in the case, was suspended for two months earlier this year, a newly published judgment has revealed.
Landreth Adonis Daniel, admitted in February 1991, was suspended in July following a two-day Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing.
Thames Valley Police reported Daniel alleging a conflict of interest in his representation of two individuals, Persons A and B, who were in a relationship and ‘professionally known’ to Daniel.
Person A was Daniel’s long-standing client. In December 2021, Person B was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Person A. The charges were classified as domestic abuse related.
Daniel appeared on behalf of Person B in criminal proceedings arising from the incident in which Person A was both the complainant and the principal prosecution witness. The trial was aborted in February 2022 and Daniel withdrew from the case.
The tribunal found Daniel ‘acted despite having known or ought to have known, that a conflict of interest or a significant risk of a conflict of interest existed’ and ‘failed to identify and respond appropriately to an obvious and serious conflict of interest’.
Daniel argued his advice to Person A, which was recorded on a police officer’s body-worn camera after police attended her home to serve a witness summons, was ‘general in nature’ which the tribunal did not accept.
Read more
The judgment said a solicitor acting with integrity would not have acted for both Person A and B in proceedings where one client would have to give evidence against the interests of the other. Daniel ‘failed to act with moral soundness, rectitude and failed to demonstrate adherence to the ethical code of the profession’, it added.
It noted ‘highly experienced’ Daniel’s admissions were properly made ‘albeit on a basis that appeared, in parts, to minimise his culpability’.
Daniel’s conduct had a ‘direct and detrimental impact on Person A, who was potentially vulnerable and the victim of a criminal offence,’ the SDT said, finding the legal advice she received from Daniel in regard to the witness summons was ‘incomplete…exacerbated her distress and could have undermined her access to justice’.
Suspending Daniel for two months, the SDT said such a sanction was ‘necessary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, to uphold the reputation of the profession, and to act as a deterrent to others’. Daniel was also ordered to pay £19,277 costs.
