• Application 11521-2016
• Admitted 2011
• Hearing 17 November 2016
• Reasons 22 December 2016
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
Between 27 June 2013 and 2 July 2014, the respondent had made statements concerning the progress of personal injury claims being brought by his clients Mrs PB, Mr SS, Mr MK and Mrs DO to those clients and to a third-party funder (USDAW) which were untrue and which he knew to be untrue, and had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
On dates unknown to the SRA, but reasonably believed by it to be within the period set out above, the respondent had fabricated documents and made payments from his own bank account in order to verify untrue statements made by him to Mrs PB, Mr SS, Mr MK, Mrs DO and USDAW, and had thereby further breached principles 2 and 6.
The respondent had fabricated a letter of instruction to C Costs Consultants Ltd, purportedly dated 17 October 2013, and had thereby further breached any or all of principles 2 and 6.
The respondent had failed to issue proceedings on behalf of his clients, Mrs PB, Mr SS, Mr MK and Mrs DO either in time or at all, in breach of principles 4 and 5, and outcome O.1.2 of the code.
Further, in relation to the above allegations the respondent had been dishonest.
The respondent had made payments from his own personal funds to two clients in order to ensure they did not suffer any losses. He had notified his employers of the circumstances and had made early admissions in the present proceedings with which he had cooperated. The respondent had shown genuine insight and remorse, and there was a low risk of repetition of his conduct.
The respondent had acted very naively and his inexperience had been his downfall. He had got himself into difficulties early on in his career, and instead of seeking assistance from senior colleagues he had attempted to deal with the problems on his own using his own money.
In the absence of finding exceptional circumstances, where an allegation of dishonesty had been proved the removal of a respondent from the roll was the only course. No such circumstances had been advanced or found. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,847.