An inexperienced solicitor who deleted a paragraph in a handover document after he failed to follow the instructions in it has been suspended from practice for two years. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found a lesser sanction for his admitted dishonesty was ‘fair and proportionate’ in a case which involved a ‘young solicitor making a foolish decision of short duration’.
Jack Alexander Williams, admitted in September 2020, was alleged, while in practice at Buckinghamshire firm Blaser Mills LLP, to have amended the electronic copy of an internal handover note by deleting the prompt to carry out capital gains tax mitigation with the intention and/or effect of misleading others into believing that no prompt had been included in the original handover note.
He was also alleged to have sent an email two days later which was misleading by failing to set out fully and/or accurately the circumstances that gave rise to a CGT liability to the estate of client A. Williams admitted the allegations against him.
In a meeting with the firm’s managing partner, he accepted his amendment of the handover and his failing on the file in regard to CGT liability ‘were stupid things to have done’. Williams was issued with a final written warning following an internal investigation. The firm referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in November 2023.
The SDT judgment found Williams’ admissions ‘were unequivocal, supported by the evidence and properly made’.
In mitigation, the SDT was told that Williams was ‘immediately remorseful’, ‘he and the firm believed that he could learn from his mistakes’ and ‘it was significant that the firm had stood by him, not least in these proceedings’. Williams’ colleague, who had written the handover for her maternity leave cover, ‘held no bad feelings towards Mr Williams’.
Read more
The judgment said: ‘Whilst there could have been potential consequences of his misconduct towards her there had in fact been no such consequences.’
Considering sanction, the three-person panel said Williams’ motivation for amending the handover note was ‘to cover up his error in not reading it thoroughly and, following the realisation that he had not followed up the reference to the deed of appropriation within it; to avoid or mitigate responsibility for that failure to follow up’.
His motivation to send the misleading email in which he said it was his understanding that a deed of appropriate had already been signed ‘was to continue to conceal his mistake’, the SDT found.
The SDT said Williams’ ‘inexperience’ was an ‘important part of the context’, adding: ‘He had only recently joined the firm and had inherited a heavy caseload.
‘The dishonesty was brief, confined to a single matter, unaccompanied by gain to the solicitor or actual harm to the client or anyone else, and there was highly credible evidence of immediate confession, remorse and genuine insight. It was a notable and unusual feature of this case that there was powerful such evidence not only from the solicitor himself but also from his firm and individual colleagues, who continued to support him and have trust in him.’
The SDT suspended Williams from practice for two years followed by a further two-years of strict practising conditions including that he may act as a solicitor only as an employee and only where the employment has been approved by the SRA. Williams was also ordered to pay £16,419 costs.
