The proceedings arose from a single allegation against the Respondent, who had been instructed by Client A to defend a summary judgment application brought by Person C in a professional negligence claim. The allegation concerned the accuracy of a schedule of costs prepared by the Respondent in connection with that hearing.
The allegation that the Respondent provided misleading information in respect of the prepared schedule of costs comprised two limbs: (i) the Respondent’s profit costs (ii) litigant-in-person (LiP) costs.

The Tribunal found that the allegation relating to profit costs turned on whether a fixed fee agreement had been reached with Client A. Having reviewed the contemporaneous documentation, particularly the client care letter dated 2 May 2017, the Tribunal concluded that the operative retainer was based on an hourly rate. The Respondent’s explanation was consistent with the documentary record, and his correspondence, though at times poorly drafted, did not reflect any intention to mislead.

As to the LiP costs, the Tribunal accepted that the figure of £8,500 was high but found that the Respondent had provided a credible explanation based on telephone discussions with Client A. There was no direct evidence that the Respondent had opened an email attachment containing a lower figure, and the Tribunal accepted his evidence that he had relied on verbal instructions. It found no personal or financial motive for dishonesty and was guided by the principle in Fish v GMC [2021] EWHC 1269 (Admin) that dishonesty should not be found without a credible motive.

The Tribunal gave appropriate weight to the Respondent’s good character and testimonial evidence from a number of regulated professionals, in line with Sawati v GMC [2022] EWHC 283 (Admin) and Martin v SRA [2020] EWHC 3525 (Admin). It found the Respondent to be a credible witness and concluded that any errors were inadvertent.
Both limbs of the allegation were found not proved to the requisite standard. The Tribunal dismissed the case and, following agreement between the parties, made no order as to costs.