A solicitor who misled his client three times about the status of a medical report was not dishonest or lacking integrity, a tribunal has ruled.
Nicholas Stojanovic, a senior associate with Yorkshire firm Ramsdens Solicitors, had received the expert’s report on a complex medical negligence claim in February 2024, then repeatedly told the client over several weeks that it remained outstanding. The firm reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Stojanovic admitted to a serious error of judgment but told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal last month that he had wanted to consider the report and formulate appropriate advice before sharing that with the client.
Following a two-day hearing, the tribunal found that he had failed to act in the best interests of his client but had not breached the principles which required him to act with honesty and integrity.
Stojanovic was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £14,361 in costs.
The tribunal heard that Stojanovic, admitted in 2003, had found the client challenging to represent because his mood could be unpredictable and communications were sometimes difficult. When the client spoke with Stojanovic a month after the report was sent to the solicitor, he said it was still awaited. A similar message was twice given subsequently by email.
The SRA submitted this was not a single ambiguous or inadvertent statement and that Stojanovic had maintained the false account. There was no record on the client file that the solicitor had withheld the report to protect the client’s mental health and it was suggested by the SRA that Stojanovic had simply put his own interests first.
Stojanovic accepted that he allowed the client to believe the report had not been received and that he maintained that position for too long. But he insisted his motivation was not to cheat, exploit or prejudice the client but rather to consider the wider evidential picture and then provide the report in a controlled and managed way. There was no personal or financial gain to Stojanovic and no indication that the client suffered any loss.
The tribunal found that Stojanovic’s decisions regarding disclosure of the report were motivated by a desire to avoid exacerbating the client’s vulnerability and mental health difficulties and the potential effect upon him of receiving the report without appropriate advice and preparation.
Its ruling added: ‘The respondent’s misleading communications were the product of a fundamentally misguided and ill-judged approach to the management and timing of the disclosure of the report, rather than a departure from the ethical standards expected of the profession.
‘A member of the public fully appraised of the nature and circumstances of the respondent’s actions, including the circumstances in which the relevant decisions were made, would not, in the tribunal’s view, lose confidence in the profession as a result.’
