A solicitor has been removed from the roll following a blackmail conviction involving a fellow director, marking a significant case for the legal profession.
In a case that underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards within the legal profession, solicitor Michael John Potter has been struck off after being convicted of blackmail. This decision, enforced by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), highlights the severity of the offence, despite it being a one-off occurrence. The tribunal asserted that the nature of Mr Potter’s actions “spoke for itself”, necessitating his removal to protect the legal profession’s reputation.
Michael John Potter, who qualified in 1991, had not practised as a solicitor since 1994, although he engaged in a temporary consultancy role with Eversheds Sutherland in 2021. His role as a director of 350 PPM Ltd, a company fostering early-stage environmental businesses, brought him into a position of authority alongside founding director Nicholas Dimmock and later John Price, director of compliance and risk. By spring 2020, the relationship between Mr Potter, Mr Price, and Mr Dimmock had deteriorated, resulting in contentious negotiations regarding their departure.
The situation escalated in July 2021 during a board meeting conducted over Zoom. Mr Potter, alongside Mr Price, demanded a settlement for their departure or an increase in their financial compensation. They threatened to report Mr Dimmock and the company to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for alleged non-compliance, should their demands not be met. Mr Potter’s recorded statement in the meeting, declaring readiness to make ‘protected disclosures’, led to his blackmail charge.
Following two trials, Mr Potter was found guilty in March 2023 of making an ‘unwarranted demand with menaces’. His sentence included 12 months of imprisonment, suspended over two years, alongside 240 hours of unpaid work. In his defence before the SDT, Mr Potter acknowledged his misconduct and expressed remorse for the poor judgement demonstrated in his actions. He referenced personal challenges during the period, yet he did not dispute the necessity of his removal from the solicitor’s roll. Moreover, Mr Potter consented to cover the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) costs of £4,158.
The striking off of Michael John Potter serves as a potent reminder of the legal profession’s stringent ethical requirements and the ramifications of violating such standards. The case reinforces the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal system.
