SRA discloses 2022 decision restricting the work of former solicitor Peter Middleton
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published a long-delayed decision revealing that a firm authorised its long-suspended lawyer to work in litigation under strict conditions. The case centres on John Robert Peter Middleton, referred to in the regulator’s notice simply as Peter Middleton, whose employment by the Bradford-based firm Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) was approved in May 2022, more than three years after the regulator made its decision public.
Middleton had been suspended indefinitely from practice as a solicitor on 31 July 2008. The tribunal decision recorded that he, at that time qualified in 1997, continued to act for clients without a practising certificate and engaged in misconduct, including failing to pay compensation, mis-representing a court order, and breaching accounts rules. The SRA wrote that it is satisfied the employment arrangement will not put public confidence in the administration of justice or client interests at risk.
According to the SRA decision, GBS’s website indicates that Middleton has worked at the firm for over a decade and that he was described in the Mr Justice Sheldon ruling in the case Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as its “head of litigation”. The approval of his employment by the firm as “senior litigation executive” in May 2022 was subject to multiple conditions. These included that his work must be directly supervised at all times by Robert Ashall, a director of the firm, and that Ashall must conduct and document meetings with Middleton at regular intervals to review his progress and his work generally.
Embed from Getty Images
In a witness statement to the High Court, Ashall said that “the work Mr Middleton had done was under my supervision”. He added: “In submitting the claim to Money Claim Online and thereby issuing proceedings Peter was supporting me in the conduct of litigation. As a firm specialising in commercial debt recovery, GBS employs a number of non-authorised fee earners, all of whom issue proceedings in support of myself and the other Authorised Persons within the business. This is the norm in commercial debt recovery.”
The SRA stated that GBS may name Middleton on its headed notepaper, website and publicity material provided his status is made clear. Their decision noted that an internet search shows that the firm only began explicitly referring to Middleton as a non-solicitor toward the end of the previous year when the challenge in the Mazur case arose. At that point the biography ended with the clarification: “To be clear, nothing here implies that Peter Middleton is legally qualified to act as a Solicitor.” This year the website was changed to include ‘non-Solicitor’ next to his name on the ‘About us’ page.
Further conditions imposed by the SRA prohibit Middleton from taking any responsibility for client monies, being an authorised signatory to any client or office account cheque, or having the power to authorise electronic payments or transfers from any client or office account. The SRA explained that Middleton’s indefinite suspension triggered section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practice as a solicitor must obtain the SRA’s approval.
The tribunal ruling from 2008 recorded that Middleton had acted as sole practitioner but did not hold a practising certificate. It found that he had carried out client work after his certificate lapsed, misled others via email about court orders, failed to comply with compensation orders, and breached accounts rules by not submitting the required accountant’s reports. Middleton did not engage with the tribunal proceedings.
The SRA’s publication comes more than three years after the decision was originally made, drawing attention to the delay in making the conditions public. Litigation practitioners and regulatory watchers said the case underscores the complex oversight required when non-solicitors or suspended solicitors seek involvement in legal work.