Lesley Dee Layton

  • Application 11652-2017
  • Admitted 2007
  • Hearing 10 October 2017
  • Reasons 10 October 2017

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

The respondent had created (or caused to be created) two witness statements on to which the signature of the witness, GH, had been copied, and had sought to represent that GH had personally signed those statements, in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and had failed to achieve outcome 5.1 of SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

When the genuineness of those copied signatures was challenged, she had sought to perpetuate her deception by falsely stating to the solicitors for defendants in GH’s claim and in her evidence to the court that she had not copied or caused to be copied GH’s signature into the statements, in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6, and had failed to achieve outcomes 5.1 and 11.1.

She had caused to be filed at court a claim form which advanced her client’s case on the basis of a fact which she did not believe to be true, in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6.

She had filed (or caused to be filed) at court a claim form which purported to have been signed by the claimant, but which she knew had not been signed by the claimant, in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6, and had failed to achieve outcome 5.1.

In each of the above the respondent had acted dishonestly.

The matter was dealt with by way of the agreed outcome procedure.

The respondent had made open and frank admissions and had always co-operated with the investigating body. She had had a previously unblemished career history.

The appropriate sanction in all the circumstances was a strike-off. No exceptional circumstances that would enable a lesser sanction to be imposed had either been presented or identified.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,920.