Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months from 31 July 2025, such suspension to be suspended for a year on the condition that within one year the respondent undertook CPD-accredited course(s) on (i) equality; diversity and inclusion of not less than 10 hours; and (ii) a certified course(s) specifically on antisemitism of not less than four hours. 

While in practice as a director and solicitor at Cartwright Solicitors, between November 2019 and January 2022, the respondent had made inappropriate, intentionally offensive and intentionally antisemitic social media posts/tweets on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

The respondent’s predominant motivation was political. The nature of the discourse crossed into antisemitism and seriously offensive language, possibly due to his anger. However, it was unbecoming of a solicitor. The misconduct had arisen from decisions made by the respondent to express himself in an unacceptable way. The level of harm was very high. 

Solicitors who lost their sense of judgement by framing legitimate political discourse in abusive and racist language placed themselves outside the range of behaviours expected by the public. However, the respondent’s admissions, his genuine contrition and steps at remediation permitted the SDT, on balance, to hold back from striking him off the roll.

A suspended suspension represented the most appropriate and proportionate sanction the SDT could impose to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession. It also allowed for rehabilitation.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £63,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be reprimanded.  

While in practice as a solicitor at Nigel Weller & Co and while acting for clients A and B in a criminal matter where Legal Aid Representation Orders (LAROs) were in place to cover their legal costs and expenses, the respondent had accepted cash payments totalling £6,000 in respect of his costs and expenses, which he had failed promptly to pay into a client account, thereby breaching principle 2 of the of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 2.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

He had failed to carry out appropriate due diligence and source of funds checks when accepting those cash payments, thereby breaching principle 2. 

The respondent’s culpability in breaching the accounts rules and failing to carry out due diligence and source of funds checks was low, and had occurred against a unique set of circumstances. No actual harm had been caused, and the risk of harm was minimal.

In the absence of aggravating features, and taking into account the mitigation advanced on behalf of the respondent, the SDT had concluded that the proven breach could appropriately be dealt with by way of a reprimand.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Clarke Wilmott LLP, the respondent had, on 14 September 2022, removed an email received from client A dated 26 May 2022 from the firm’s document management system to conceal that he had received it, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between 15 and 16 September 2022, the respondent had sent emails to client A and his supervising partner at the firm denying that he had received the email from client A dated 26 May 2022, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code for Solicitors.

The respondent had admitted the allegations.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. 

The SDT had found the respondent’s dishonest conduct to have been deliberate and calculated. It had determined that, in the light of the dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The SDT had not found any exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,000. 

On 29 September 2025, the SRA intervened into the remainder of the firm Ingenious Legal Ltd, formerly of Cornerblock, 4th Floor, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3HN. The firm closed on 31 October 2022.

The ground for intervention was: a relevant insolvency event has occurred in relation to the firm (paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007). 

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786 341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.