This case involved two respondents, The First Respondent (a solicitor) and the Second Respondent (a paralegal), were alleged to have been responsible for misleading representations made during the course of two separate conveyancing transactions. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) brought proceedings against both individuals under the Solicitors Act 1974, citing breaches of Principles 2, 4, and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 (“the Principles”), and Paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct (“the Code) in the case of the First Respondent.

In the first transaction, the sale of the First Property was completed without a grant of probate for one of the deceased co-owners. The contract and transfer documents incorrectly named the deceased individuals as sellers. It was alleged that an email was sent to the buyer’s solicitors on 8 October 2021 falsely claiming that the signed transfer had been lost in the post and that a fresh deed was awaited, omitting the critical fact that probate had not yet been granted. This email was sent by the Second Respondent but was allegedly drafted with the First Respondent’s involvement and sent with her approval.

In the second transaction, involving the sale of the Second Property, it was alleged that the Second Respondent emailed a client of the Firm on 7 October 2021, falsely stating that the buyer’s solicitors had misplaced the signed transfer deed. It was further alleged that in reality, no such deed had ever been executed or sent and the misrepresentation was intended to induce the client to sign a new transfer without questioning the delay. It was alleged in respect of the First Respondent, that as the fee earner, she was aware of the situation and responded to the Second Respondent’s email with apparent approval.

Both Respondents provided conflicting accounts in relation to the two transactions. In respect of the first transaction, the First Respondent denied authorising the misleading email and claimed that the Second Respondent acted against her instructions, while the Second Respondent asserted that she acted under the First Respondent’s direction and that the First Respondent drafted the misleading content. In relation to the Second Transaction, the First Respondent denied knowledge that the email sent to the client was misleading and maintained that she believed the transfer had been signed and sent. The Second Respondent, by contrast, admitted sending the email and acknowledged that it was misleading, but claimed she was acting under the First Respondent’s supervision and in accordance with her instructions.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal granted an application to withdraw the aspect of the allegations against the First Respondent concerning dishonesty, based on independent medical expert evidence received by the Applicant. The Tribunal also considered, and refused, an application for adjournment supported by all parties. The application was made on the grounds that the Second Respondent had only recently secured representation, which would not be available at critical stages of the scheduled hearing, and that an adjournment would enable her legal team to address unresolved case management issues and ensure she was represented at a future hearing.

A further application by the First Respondent for the cases against each Respondent to be heard separately was opposed by the Applicant and the Second Respondent and was refused by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then dealt with the outstanding preliminary issues and commenced the hearing. On the third day of the proceedings, the Second Respondent withdrew, stating that she could not effectively participate following the refusal of her earlier adjournment application.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant’s witnesses and from the First Respondent. It determined that the Applicant had not proved the allegations against the First Respondent to the requisite standard and dismissed them. In light of that finding, the Tribunal did not proceed to consider the breaches alleged against her. In respect of the Second Respondent, the Tribunal found all allegations and breaches proved on the balance of probabilities. It therefore acquitted the First Respondent and made an order pursuant to s.43 Solicitors Act 1974 against the Second Respondent.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant’s application for costs against each Respondent, but significantly reduced the amounts ordered after considering their respective means.