This matter arose from a report made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on 29 January 2024 by Mr G concerning the conduct of the Respondent in relation to Mr G’s mother, Ms G. At the material time, Ms G was a vulnerable individual suffering from significant mental health issues and had been detained pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983.

The Applicant’s investigation revealed that the Respondent had formed a personal connection with Ms G and had thereafter involved himself in her affairs. On 27 December 2023, the Respondent sent an unsolicited email to Mr G and his half-brother, Mr N, in which he asserted that he was instructed by Ms G, that he was acting as her “Next of Kin”, that they had been removed from that position, and that they should have no further involvement in her care. The Respondent also indicated that he might pursue civil claims against them, set out a charging rate of £500 per hour, and claimed that Ms G intended to transfer her property to him in lieu of anticipated legal costs.

During the course of the investigation, the Respondent provided the Solicitors Regulation Authority with material including WhatsApp communications between himself and Ms G. These communications suggested the existence of a personal and emotionally involved relationship. The content of the messages sent to Mr G and to Mr N formed the subject of the first allegation for which the Respondent was referred to the Tribunal.

The material provided by the Respondent also revealed that the Respondent had been the subject of criminal proceedings arising from separate conduct involving another individual. It was further established that the Respondent had been convicted, following trial in the Magistrates’ Court, of an offence of stalking a Ms A, causing serious alarm and distress harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for which he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment. A separate allegation in these proceedings arose from that conviction.

Following the commencement of proceedings, the Respondent did not file a Response to the Rule 12 Statement or comply with the relevant Standard Directions. The Respondent also failed to attend the Case Management Hearing on 19 February 2026, at which the matter was listed for a substantive hearing notwithstanding his absence.

The Respondent had indicated to the Applicant in writing prior to the hearing that he was unable to participate because of ill-health, relying upon medical evidence from his GP dated 2 June 2026. The Tribunal granted the Applicant’s application to proceed in the Respondent’s absence, finding that the medical evidence did not establish that he was unable to participate in the proceedings and that he had voluntarily absented himself.

Evidence was heard from one witness, and both allegations were found proved against the Respondent to the requisite standard.