Person A instructed the Respondent to prepare a Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPA”) for Property and Financial Affairs, intending to appoint her three children as attorneys. On 25 January 2021, Person A sent a letter enclosing a cheque for £82 payable to the Office of the Public Guardian (“OPG”). Person A duly signed the LPA in the form drafted by the Respondent. Her children, who were notified of their appointments, also subsequently signed the LPA as attorneys and returned it to the Respondent.

The Respondent resigned from the Firm on 25 November 2021 and worked her three-month notice period to complete all outstanding tasks.

On 8 February 2022, the Respondent dictated a letter to Person A, acknowledging an oversight on her part in failing to register the LPA. The letter was typed by a member of the administrative staff and returned to the Respondent for checking and review on 24 February 2022. That same day, the Respondent added two sentences to the original drafted letter, stating she had amended the LPA to prevent rejection by the OPG. In addition, the Respondent altered the year within the cheque date from 2021 to 2022. The changes to both the LPA and the cheque were done without Person A’s approval of these changes. The letter and cheque were sent to the OPG on 25 February 2022.

The Respondent admitted the allegations of failing to register the LPA and altering the LPA and the cheque but denied responsibility for sending the LPA and cheque to the OPG, asserting that her intention was to seek the approval of Person A for the alterations that she had made by way of preparation before the documents were dispatched. The Respondent admitted all the breaches of the SRA Principles and Code alleged against her, except for Principle 4 relating to dishonesty.

The Tribunal found it unproven on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent had sent the LPA and the cheque to the OPG. The Tribunal determined, on the balance of probabilities, that her amendments to the LPA and cheque were not dishonest. The Respondent was accordingly not found to have breached Principle 4. Further, the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent had not breached paragraph 7.11 of the Code requiring her to be open and honest in respect of the changes made.