The Respondent is a solicitor who was admitted to the Roll on 1 July 2003. He commenced employment with Ramsdens Solicitors LLP (“the Firm”) on 10 January 2022 as a Senior Associate in the Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team. The allegations arose from the Respondent’s employment with the Firm.

Client X instructed the Firm in January 2019 in relation to a complex clinical negligence claim arising from a failed operation which resulted in serious physical complications and adversely affected Client X’s mental health. The Respondent took over conduct of Client X’s case in January 2022.

Following a query by Client X concerning the Respondent’s handling of an expert medical report, the Firm conducted an investigation in May 2024. The Firm concluded that the Respondent had received the report in February 2024 but had subsequently indicated to Client X on several occasions in March and April 2024 that the report remained outstanding. The Firm reported the matter to the SRA.

Following its investigation, the SRA brought allegations that, on three occasions between March and April 2024, the Respondent provided untrue and/or misleading information to Client X by informing him that the Respondent was awaiting a psychiatrist’s report which he had already received on 19 February 2024. It was alleged that this conduct breached Principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The Tribunal found the factual allegations proved and found that the Respondent had breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, which required him to act in the best interests of Client X, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, which required him not to mislead or attempt to mislead a client, the court, or others.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of breach of Principle 2, which required the Respondent to act in a way that upheld public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons, were not proved. The Tribunal also found that the allegations of breach of Principles 4 and 5, which required the Respondent to act with honesty and integrity respectively, were not proved.

In view of the regulatory breaches found proved, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent pay a fine of £15,000.00.