![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)
Zoe Ann Lowe
Application 12343-2022
Admitted 1995
Hearing 25 August 2022
Reasons 14 September 2022
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
Having missed court deadlines for filing witness statements, updated medical evidence and updated schedule of losses, and having been notified by the defendant’s solicitors that they would apply to have the claim struck out, the respondent had failed to notify her client, A, of the situation and had failed to obtain her instructions, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.1 and 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
She had accepted an offer in settlement from the defendant which was lower than an offer that A had previously rejected, without taking A’s instructions and contrary to her last known instructions, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.1 and 1.2 of the code.
Having accepted the offer of settlement, she had failed to inform A that she had settled the claim and that the settlement monies had been received into the firm’s client account, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.1 and 1.2 of the code.
She had made statements to A which were untrue and were likely to mislead A as to the progress of her personal injury claim and which she knew or ought to have known were liable to have that effect at the time they were made, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.1 and 1.2, of the code. She had acted dishonestly.
The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome.
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 proposed sanction was the appropriate and proportionate sanction given the dishonest misconduct admitted by the respondent. No exceptional circumstances had been advanced or found on the papers.
An order striking the respondent from the roll was therefore required.
The respondent was ordered to pay £4,721 costs.
