The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has overturned a rebuke issued by an SRA adjudicator against solicitor Liam Connolly, who was accused of attempting to prevent a client from reporting him to regulators.
The issue arose when a former client, referred to as ‘Mrs S’, made various complaints about the service provided by Mr Connolly, who is an equity partner at a firm in Reading. She sought a refund of the £2,616 in fees she paid. In response, Mr Connolly offered a ‘without prejudice’ settlement, which controversially included a clause related to ‘regulatory action’.
Mrs S questioned the inclusion of this provision, citing rule 7.5 of the code of conduct that prohibits solicitors from hindering the flow of information to the SRA or any regulatory body. Mr Connolly clarified in a subsequent email that the firm was not attempting to prevent any reporting, although acceptance of the offer would mean waiving the right to do so.
Two days later, upon request, Mr Connolly agreed to drop the contentious clause, asserting that at no point did the firm intend to restrict any client action. Despite this, Mrs S’s husband later reported the firm to the SRA.
The SRA adjudicator argued that Mr Connolly’s email was clear in its intent and that a financial incentive was being offered to discourage regulatory complaints. Consequently, Mr Connolly faced a public rebuke and was ordered to pay £1,350 in costs.
Upon appeal, the SDT found that the adjudicator had misjudged key elements, incorrectly perceiving some factors as aggravating the case. It noted that the appellant’s personal responsibility did not inherently worsen his conduct and that Mrs S’s understanding of the rule did not contribute to the severity of the breach.
The tribunal concluded that the assumptions about Mr Connolly’s motivations lacked evidence, emphasising that there was no suggestion of dishonest intent. Furthermore, it highlighted that the reported mistake regarding the September email was merely an error, with no detrimental impact arising from it.
The SDT criticised the adjudicator for overstating a delay in rectifying the mistake, which took only a few hours. The tribunal determined that without the supposed aggravating factors, the breach was minor, and the rebuke was excessive, leading to its revocation.
The SDT’s decision underscores the importance of careful evaluation in disciplinary actions, emphasising that context and intent are crucial in assessing professional conduct.
