Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that as from 9 July 2025 except in accordance with Law Society permission: (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body. 

While a registered foreign lawyer and a member of Ashurst LLP, between approximately 14 December 2018 and 29 June 2021 in relation to person A, the respondent had behaved inappropriately and had engaged in conduct which he knew or ought to have known was unwanted. He had thereby committed an act or acts of such a nature that, in the opinion of the SRA, it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in accordance with section 43(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974.

Between approximately 19 January 2021 and 6 July 2021 in relation to person B, the respondent had behaved inappropriately and had engaged in conduct which he knew or ought to have known was unwanted. He had thereby committed an act or acts of such a nature that, in the opinion of the SRA, it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in accordance with section 43(1) of the act.

The respondent’s conduct in the above allegations was sexually motivated and was an abuse of his position as a partner in the firm.

Given its finding that the respondent’s conduct was undesirable, the SDT had determined that it was appropriate to make an order in the terms of section 43(2) of the act.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £61,561.

On 23 October 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named sole practice of Jonathan Chauncy at Chauncy & Co Solicitors, Peek House, 20 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1EB. 

The grounds for intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Chauncy and/or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed to act as intervention agent. The first date of attendance was 24 October 2025.

Chauncy’s practising certificate has not been suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

On 26 September 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Mark Jackson and the recognised body, Lake Jackson, of Virginia Cottage, Buckenham Lane, Norwich NR13 4NG.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Mark Jackson were: 

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on his part in connection with his practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974.
• Jackson had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, the SRA Principles 2019, the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 1(1)( c) Schedule 1 Part I Solicitors Act 1974.

The grounds for intervention into Lake Jackson were: 

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Jackson, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.
• Jackson, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and 2019, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and 2019, which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 – paragraph 32(1)(a) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Jackson’s practising certificate was suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

Jackson has issued proceedings in the High Court to set aside the intervention decision.

Richard Thorpe of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.