Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Collingwood Immigration Services LLP between November 2021 and May 2022, the respondent had sent emails to Client A and Person B which he knew or ought to have known were misleading, in that he had omitted to tell them that the further submissions had first been sent by email to the Home Office on 21 December 2021 and not on 21 July 2020. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraphs 1.4 and 7.11 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between 3 December 2021 and 30 November 2022, the respondent had told the firm’s COLP and the Home Office that Client A’s further submissions had been submitted in July 2020 when he knew or ought to have known that that was misleading because the further submissions had first been sent by email to the Home Office on 21 December 2021 and not in July 2020. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code for Solicitors. 

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 respondent was an experienced solicitor who had accepted that he had failed to act with integrity and had acted dishonestly by deliberately misleading his client, other members of the profession, the Home Office and a member of parliament, thereby causing harm. The respondent’s actions constituted serious misconduct which had been aggravated by being sustained over a period of time. Striking him off the roll was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and protect the public.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,000.

On 18 November 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named licensed body and into the practice of Susan Joss at the firm, based at 445 Fair Oak Road, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 7AJ.

The grounds for intervention in relation to Susan Joss were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Joss in connection with her practice at the firm – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).
• Joss had failed to comply with the rules – paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the act.

The grounds for intervention in relation to Joss Legal Solutions Ltd were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Susan Joss as a manager of the firm in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 1(2)(d) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007.
• One or more of the terms of the firm’s licence have not been complied with – paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, of Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@LA-Law.com) has been appointed to act as intervention agent. 

The first date of attendance was 20 November 2025.