Nicholas Samuel Usiskin
- Application 11673-2017
- Hearing 20 September 2017
- Reasons 5 October 2017
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for nine months from 1 November 2017. Upon expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration; (iv) work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.
The matter had been dealt with by way of the agreed outcome procedure.
The respondent had signed statements of truth in three separate witness statements purporting that the signatures in each respective statement were those of AT, DH and MS and had served those witness statements on SB, thereby attempting to mislead SB in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
He had subsequently served those witness statements on the Oxford County Court, thereby attempting to mislead the court in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6 and outcome 5.1.
Attempting to mislead the court was serious and there had been damage to the reputation of the profession. However, the medical evidence was unchallenged and constituted powerful personal mitigation.
A period of suspension of nine months was an appropriate and proportionate sanction in the particular circumstances. However, in order to protect the public, it was appropriate to impose certain conditions upon the respondent’s future practice.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,626.