Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Leigh Day Solicitors, the respondent had, on or around 20 and 21 June 2023, created a letter falsely dated 26 May 2023, which stated that documents for inspection were enclosed, and had sent, or caused to be sent, that letter to the defendant’s solicitor in a personal injury case under cover of correspondence dated 21 June 2023, which stated the 26 May 2023 letter had previously been sent. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

On or around 20 June 2023, the respondent had provided misleading information to his employer in respect of when the documents for inspection had first been disclosed to another party in litigation. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had been motivated to claim that he had complied with a court deadline because he was subject to a performance improvement plan and a final written warning and was likely to lose his job if his failure to carry out disclosure came to light. While his actions had initially been spontaneous, he had then sustained them by continuing to insist that he had validly conducted disclosure on or around 26 May 2023, and in so doing he had misled his supervisor and subsequently the regulator. 

While in the event there had been minimal impact, other than delay, on the parties to the underlying litigation, that had not been inevitable. Dishonesty had been proved, reflecting deliberate and calculated misconduct, which was an aggravating feature. The respondent’s behaviour was only mitigated to the extent that it had been an episode of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career. 

A finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll. The SDT could not find any exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction than a striking off, which was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £36,255. 

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

While in practice as the recognised sole practitioner, owner, manager, COLP, COFA, MLRO and MLCO at Mawdsleys Solicitors, the respondent had failed to comply with the final decision of the legal ombudsman dated 13 October 2017, requiring the ombudsman to obtain a court order to enforce its decision. In particular, the respondent had failed to: (i) pay the compensation ordered by the ombudsman until August 2022; (ii) confirm in writing the final balance of any investments forming the relevant trust funds or confirm a date on which those would be released until 26 April 2023; or (iii) release the funds until 26 April 2023. He had thereby acted in breach of principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and had failed to achieve outcome 10.6 of the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011; and had acted in breach of principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 7.3 of the SRA’s Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELS and RFLs.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court order obtained by the ombudsman from Liverpool County Court dated 4 January 2023 in a timely manner. In particular, he had failed to confirm in writing the final balance of any investments forming the relevant trust funds, or confirm a date on which those would be released until 26 April 2023 and to release the funds until 26 April 2023. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the 2019 Principles and paragraph 2.5 of the 2019 code.

When completing two Solicitors Professional Indemnity Proposal Forms dated 15 September 2021 and 25 September 2023, the respondent had caused or allowed inaccurate and/or misleading information to be provided to the firm’s prospective insurers. He had thereby breached paragraph 1.4 of the 2019 code and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles. 

Between 9 March 2023 and 14 December 2023, the respondent had failed to comply with the court orders of Master McQuail dated 9 March 2023 and 2 May 2023, the latter of which imposed a penal notice, in a timely manner or at all, requiring firm A to issue an application for contempt of court proceedings. He had thereby breached paragraph 2.5 of the code and principles 1, 2 and 5. He had acted recklessly.

With regard to the first, second and fourth allegations, the respondent had ignored his regulatory obligations. As regards the third allegation, he had sought to mislead the insurers, notwithstanding his knowledge of his regulatory history. His actions had been planned. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it had involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £39,336. 

The SDT ordered that: the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months from 5 December 2025; that period of suspension to be suspended for two years from the same date, subject to compliance by the respondent throughout that period with the following restriction order: that he might not be involved in professional recruitment interviews and/or disciplinary investigations within any solicitors’ firm.

While a solicitor, and owner of and partner at The Independent Criminal Law Specialists (trading as Criminal Defence Solicitors) between June 2016 and February 2019, the respondent had engaged in behaviour that was inappropriate and/or had amounted to harassment and/or bullying towards five individuals who worked at the firm (Persons A–E), comprising five allegations (1.1–1.5) that he had breached Principles 2, 6 and 9 and/or had failed to achieve outcomes 2.1 and/or 2.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and allegation 1.6, that certain conduct had been sexually motivated in respect of Person E, thereby breaching Principles 2, 6 and 9 and/or failing to achieve outcome 11.1. The allegations were set out in six schedules comprising 50 particulars.

Of the 50 particulars, 43 had been proved in their entirety, two had been proved in part, and five had not been proved. One allegation had been found to be sexually motivated within the meaning of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). 

The respondent’s culpability had been assessed as medium, given the fact that a majority of the incidents had been spontaneous and opportunistic rather than premeditated or deliberate. However, the respondent’s seniority and experience imposed a heightened duty to maintain professional standards. The harm caused was significant, as evidenced by the impact statements of the complainants, and was compounded by the substantial imbalance of power and the respondent’s position of authority, which rendered the complainants particularly vulnerable.

The SDT therefore determined that a suspension order was appropriate, given the overall nature and seriousness of the misconduct, and that a suspended suspension would adequately protect the public and uphold professional standards, given the absence of further issues since the events in question. However, it was necessary to impose a further restriction prohibiting the respondent from participating in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations within any solicitors’ firm to address the underlying concerns raised by the proven allegations, but that restriction did not extend to participation in regulatory investigations conducted by the SRA or other approved regulators.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, to be subject to a detailed assessment unless otherwise agreed.

On 26 June 2026, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named licensed body, based at head office – 28th Floor, The Gherkin, 30 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8BF, and branch offices: 1 Lowry Plaza, The Quays, Salford M50 3UN, and The Wheelhouse, Cheapside, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent ST1 1HE. 

The grounds for intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Noel Stuart Basson as an employee 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 had not been complied with – paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007.

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA (tel: 0333 321 4405; email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the Law Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 30 June 2026.