• Application 11662-2017
• Admitted 2012
• Hearing 30 November, 1 December 2017
• Reasons 20 December 2017
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
By creating two insurance policy schedules purportedly dated 21 October 2014 with increased indemnity limits of £50,000 and £100,000 respectively, which she knew or ought to have known would mislead the legal expenses insurance providers, the respondent had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. In so doing, she had acted dishonestly.
By creating purported attendance notes in relation to calls which she was aware had not taken place and correspondence that had not been sent on the file relating to her client TS, she had breached both or either of principles 2 and 6. In so doing, she had acted dishonestly.
The respondent was singularly and entirely culpable for her misconduct. She had been motivated by her hope to conceal the fact that she had failed to agree an appropriate level of indemnity.
Her conduct was aggravated by her proven dishonesty. Further, her actions were deliberate, calculated and repeated, with the fabrication of a number of documents.
In view of the serious nature of the misconduct in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to order that the respondent be struck off the roll.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £9,000.
Note: We have been asked to make clear that Kate Louise Sanderson is totally unconnected with Kate Louise Swann (nee Sandison)