A solicitor has faced disciplinary action for sending letters to numerous secondary schools, cautioning them against Covid measures and hinting at legal repercussions. This has resulted in a fine from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Lois Yvonne Bayliss, a solicitor based in Sheffield, dispatched letters to at least 244 secondary schools, asserting potential criminal or civil liability if they implemented Covid-related protocols. The letters specifically targeted practices such as face-covering requirements, lateral flow testing, and vaccination facilitation, stating that the schools should confirm their compliance to avoid further action.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) scrutinised these communications, determining that the letters implied threats, suggesting legal actions, albeit implicitly. The SDT highlighted the passive-aggressive and menacing tone, particularly noting the final paragraph’s intimidating element, despite its claim of being polite.
One core issue identified by the SDT was Ms Bayliss’s failure to clarify her role in these communications. The letters bore her firm’s logo, giving the impression that they were official solicitor’s correspondence, thus causing confusion and anxiety among recipients. The SDT found that Ms Bayliss did not specify that she was not acting on behalf of clients or under client instructions and did not intend to pursue legal proceedings.
Despite Ms Bayliss’s defence that her actions stemmed from a genuine concern about potential harm to children and confusion among teachers, the tribunal concluded that she acted without integrity. They cited a power imbalance inherent in the letters, exacerbated by her omission of important disclaimers regarding her professional capacity and intentions.
While the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) remained neutral regarding the scientific legitimacy of Ms Bayliss’s claims, they recognised the need to uphold the profession’s integrity. Her actions, while not deemed misleading to lay readers, fell short of professional standards, leading to disciplinary measures.
The tribunal acknowledged that Ms Bayliss cooperated throughout the investigation yet pointed out her limited insight into her misconduct. Though no actual harm was caused by the letters, the reputational damage to the legal profession was significant. Consequently, she received a £2,500 fine, considered on the lower end for misconduct of this nature.
Additionally, the matter of costs was addressed, noting Ms Bayliss’s public fundraising efforts to cover her substantial legal expenses, amounting to £43,000. Ultimately, she was ordered to pay £30,000 in costs, reflecting the complexity of the case and extensive documentation involved.
The decision underscores the importance of clarity and integrity in legal communications, especially in unprecedented situations affecting public trust. This case illustrates how legal professionals must navigate their responsibilities and public perceptions carefully in sensitive contexts such as public health measures.
