The primary allegations involved failures to adequately cooperate with investigations by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) and the SRA over an extended period, specifically from early 2021 to early 2024, which included not responding promptly to enquiries and failing to comply with a statutory notice. Additionally, it was alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge a professional undertaking within a reasonable time between July 2022 and June 2023.

The Respondent apologised for the delays in responding to regulatory bodies and fulfilling an undertaking. However, while admitting the facts underpinning the allegations and the breaches of professional conduct, he disputed that the delays constituted a lack of integrity. His defence to lack of integrity was based predominantly upon the impact of a serious health event and its immediate and consequential impact on his cognitive abilities and capacity to manage his professional responsibilities effectively during the relevant period. He had enjoyed a long and previously unblemished career. He asked the Tribunal to take into account his genuine remorse, and the corrective measures he had taken. The Tribunal was invited to consider medical evidence as a crucial factor in understanding his conduct and determining culpability, particularly regarding the allegation of lack of integrity.

In the event the Tribunal found that his conduct did not meet the higher threshold of a lack of integrity (Principle 5) and ultimately it found that the allegations of lack of integrity were not proven, attributing the admitted failings to the medical issues as an explanation rather than an excuse.

The Respondent was fined £5,000.