In a recent legal judgment, Michelle Scully, a personal injury fee-earner, was found to have made fundamentally dishonest claims regarding injuries from car accidents and her professional qualifications.
Circuit Judge Bird of Manchester has ruled against Michelle Scully, also known by her married name Atherton, for dishonesty in both her injury claims and academic credentials. The case, highlighting significant deception, involves Scully’s personal injury claims valued at £65,000 for supposed soft tissue and psychological injuries accompanied by tinnitus following three car accidents in 2015 and 2016.
During the proceedings, Scully, who has worked in the legal field since 2009, was revealed to have exaggerated her qualifications. Her LinkedIn profile cited more academic achievements than she possessed, claiming more than five A-Levels when, in reality, she had only one. She also falsely presented herself as progressing through CILEX examinations and preparing for a level 6 exam, although she merely had possession of the textbooks.
The court found her unreliable as a witness, with Judge Bird asserting she gave evidence favoring her own interests, fabricating responses under scrutiny. The judgment identified her as a generally dishonest person, leading to a rejection of her injury claims in their entirety.
The scrutiny of Scully’s claims extended to the medical testimony she provided. Judge Bird noted that her assertions of being unable to return to the gym post-injury were unfounded, as the evidence suggested otherwise. Consequently, costs shifting was disapplied, and the judge considered ordering Scully to cover the defendants’ costs.
As a result of these findings, there is a possibility that she will be reported to professional regulatory bodies including the Law Society, CILEX, and former employers outlined in her LinkedIn profile. Scully expressed her disappointment with the outcome and signalled her intent to appeal the judgment. She argued that the judge overly focused on collateral issues unrelated to her actual injuries, and disputed the decision to dismiss supporting expert evidence.
Alex Wilkinson, head of HF’s technical fraud team, noted the implications of Scully’s deceit on others who might have missed employment opportunities due to her false qualifications. Ian Price from Admiral Insurance further suggested that their policyholder reports prompted an investigation into the legitimacy of Scully’s injury claims.
Bond Turner, a firm where Scully previously worked and offered misleading information, has taken disciplinary steps and reported her to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This case underlines the zero-tolerance attitude towards dishonesty within the legal profession, serving as a stark reminder of the ethical standards expected.
This judgment underscores the serious consequences of dishonesty in the legal profession, emphasizing the need for integrity and accuracy in professional representations and claims.
