A veteran solicitor who admitted to making a ‘muddle’ of a case has been cleared of breaching any regulatory rules.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged that Richard Alexander Dobson, admitted in 1977, had failed to act in the best interests of his client in responding to their case being lost. Dobson admitted procedural failings and poor communication with the client, but argued the SRA had framed poor case management as professional misconduct.
Following a three-day hearing in April, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said this was not a regulatory matter and that Dobson had been trying to act in his client’s best interests.
Its ruling said that while the mistakes were ‘regrettable’, they were not serious and Dobson was not culpable from a regulatory standpoint.
Dobson, who worked for Nottingham firm Trent Law, had picked up the instruction in 2020 from another solicitor who had fallen ill. His client was being sued by the estate of her late husband over the proceeds of the sale of a mobile home.
A directions questionnaire and costs budget were not filed by Dobson and default judgment was entered for almost £50,000. The client later paid around £60,000 after court enforcement officers gained access to her residence.
The client had complained to the legal ombudsman which opted not to pursue an investigation, but in 2023 Dobson’s firm reported him ito the SRA after he had left. The regulator took another 18 months to refer Dobson’s conduct to the tribunal.
Prosecuting, the SRA told the tribunal that the case had good prospects of success but had ended with default judgment after he chose to ignore repeated requests for a response from the claimant’s solicitors. It was further alleged there was no evidence that Dobson informed the client that default judgment had been entered due to his failure to comply with court directions.
Dobson’s representative accepted the solicitor had ‘lost grip’ of the client file but said the mistakes that were made did not cross the threshold into serious failings amounting to professional misconduct. There were reasonable and consistent explanations for his acts and omissions – as the ombudsman had accepted – and this was a single poor case in a career of nearly 50 years.
The tribunal found Dobson to be truthful and honest in his evidence and that he candidly accepted his mistakes and did not seek to deflect responsibility.
It was accepted that Dobson had not been required to respond to every contact from the claimant’s solicitors, whose approach was deemed to be ‘aggressive’. It was also considered there were matters which needed to be investigated before a full reply was sent.
The tribunal further accepted that Dobson believed the court had made an error and thought he would be able to get the default judgment set aside without a formal application and without the client being involved.
After being cleared of all allegations, Dobson unsuccessfully applied for the SRA to pay £15,000 towards his costs. The SRA’s costs were not disclosed but it did not apply for any costs order.
