Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months from 11 March 2026, and that she would be subject to a restriction order as set out below. 

Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent would be subject to conditions imposed by the SDT for a period of 24 months as follows: that she might not work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

While in practice as a consultant solicitor at Dunn & Baker, on 20 January 2023, the respondent had sent three emails to client A, of which any or all, taken individually or collectively, were oppressive and inappropriate in that they threatened that: (i) the firm would issue an application for an injunction if client A did not confirm in writing that she had withdrawn any complaints made; (ii) the firm would issue an application for an injunction to prohibit client A from making or continuing with any complaint to the Legal Ombudsman and/or the SRA, in breach of the settlement agreement of 16 September 2022; (iii) if client A breached the injunction, she would be held in contempt of court and would be liable to imprisonment and payment of the firm’s costs; and (iv) if client A applied to the courts for a determination of the settlement agreement, her challenge would fail and the firm would seek their costs of defending such a claim from her. She had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent admitted all the allegations. 

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

The misconduct had the potential to prevent client A from making a complaint, thereby obstructing effective regulatory oversight. Moreover, the respondent’s actions adversely affected the wider reputation of the legal profession. 

The SDT emphasised that the case served as a stark reminder to the profession of the importance of remaining measured in their communications, particularly when corresponding with members of the public. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000. 

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

While in practice as a consultant solicitor at Clifton Law Limited, between 25 September 2020 and 22 June 2022, the respondent had given misleading information to the court in written and oral evidence, during proceedings under claim number 159MC544 in Coventry County Court, by fabricating the existence of a merger between his company (Company X) and Company A, in an attempt to explain why he had received nine payments from clients into his personal bank accounts, where the monies were owed to the firm for legal fees. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2011 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code for Solicitors.

On 30 January 2019, 28 May 2019, 12 August 2019 and 31 October 2019, the respondent had issued invoices to Mr and Mrs A and had subsequently demanded payment for outstanding fees allegedly owed to the firm, where the firm had not authorised the issuing of invoices and where fees were not owed to the firm. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 6 of the Principles. 

On 28 and 30 January 2019, he had sent two letters to third parties in which he had purported to act on behalf of the firm in respect of the transfer of gold and had falsely stated that he was ‘Head of International Trade and Arbitration’ on the firm’s letterheaded paper. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the Principles.

The dishonest misconduct found was of the utmost seriousness, in that it had breached both the fundamental duty incumbent on the respondent, as a solicitor, to conduct litigation fairly by not misleading the court and not misleading others. Misleading a judge was a serious act of professional misconduct.

The respondent’s actions had caused harm to others, and distress to the firm’s clients, Mr and Mrs A. The respondent was an unreliable witness, and he had not shown any insight into the nature or effect of his misconduct. 

He had carried out calculated, knowingly dishonest actions repeatedly and over a period of time, in pursuit of personal gain.

A finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll. By reference to the seriousness of the misconduct, the degree of culpability, the harm caused to others and the lack of sufficient mitigating factors, the appropriate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

On 26 May 2026, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the recognised sole practice of Patrick Cusack, who practised as Patrick J Cusack & Co. The firm was previously based at 66 Station Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 2SQ. There was no attendance. 

Patrick Cusack died on 6 November 2021.

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Cusack is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

No one has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.