Regulator issues rebuke after solicitor admits error of judgment in backdating deed
A solicitor has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after instructing a trainee to backdate a deed during the administration of a probate matter.
Helen Therese Freely admitted to an error of judgment after telling a trainee solicitor to date a deed one year after a client’s death rather than the actual date of execution. The regulator concluded that while her conduct fell below expected standards, it did not amount to dishonesty.
At the time of the events, Ms Freely was working at City law firm Druces. The probate concerned an individual who died in July 2022. His widow had dementia, and the executors of the estate were the deceased’s adult children. They were also acting on their mother’s behalf under a lasting power of attorney.
According to the SRA notice, in autumn 2024 a trainee working under Ms Freely’s supervision emailed the executors a draft deed and retainer for signature. When the trainee asked how the document should be dated, Ms Freely advised that it should be dated one year after the death. She explained that this was when the deed should have been completed within the executors’ year of administration.
Embed from Getty Images
Ms Freely also told the trainee to confirm with the clients that they were content with this approach. The executors confirmed their agreement, and the document was prepared on that basis.
In representations to the regulator, Ms Freely said she genuinely believed at the time that it was proper and acceptable to backdate the deed. She stated that she had obtained the clients’ informed and written consent before proceeding.
She accepted, however, that the decision had damaged public trust in the profession. Ms Freely acknowledged that the deed should instead have been dated on the day it was executed in October 2024. She said the correct approach would have been to explain in a recital or covering correspondence that the agreement was intended to take effect earlier.
Ms Freely stressed that she had no intention to mislead, disguise, or conceal the true chronology of events. She also said she did not seek to create a false impression about when the arrangement was signed or came into effect.
In reaching its decision, the SRA noted there was no evidence of dishonesty. It also found that neither the solicitor nor her clients stood to benefit from the backdating. No harm was ultimately caused, and the regulator assessed the risk of repetition as very low.
Taking all factors into account, the SRA concluded that a rebuke was the appropriate outcome. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that legal documents accurately reflect the date of execution, even where clients consent, and no advantage is sought.