Disciplinary Tribunal finds solicitor fabricated notice to secure adjournment
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off a solicitor after finding that she misled the Leeds Employment Tribunal and submitted a fabricated court document to support a request for an adjournment.
In a judgment dated 24 October 2025, the Tribunal concluded that the solicitor acted dishonestly while employed by Company A during employment proceedings at the Leeds Employment Tribunal in June.
The case was brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the Solicitors Act 1974. The hearing took place across several dates between February and July 2025.
The Tribunal found that on 5 June, the solicitor emailed the Leeds Employment Tribunal stating she was required to attend another tribunal hearing on 9 June. The Tribunal determined that no such hearing existed.
On 19 June, she submitted a redacted Notice of Preliminary Hearing which purported to confirm that a hearing involving Company A had been listed at the Southampton Employment Tribunal on 9 June. The document appeared to have been issued by the Bristol Employment Tribunal and bore the name of a court official.
However, evidence showed that the named official had not issued or signed the notice. Internal records and cause lists did not show any hearing involving Company A on the date in question. The Tribunal identified inconsistencies in the document’s format, including spelling errors within standard headings and wording that did not align with official templates.
The solicitor denied wrongdoing. She maintained that she believed the notice to be genuine and acted in good faith. She also argued that court listing systems had known issues and that hearings were sometimes removed from cause lists. The Tribunal acknowledged evidence that the Employment Tribunal’s internal system had experienced historical problems, but it found that contemporaneous documents contradicted her account.
Applying the test for dishonesty set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Tribunal concluded that the solicitor knew there was no hearing on 9 June and that the notice submitted was fabricated. It held that ordinary decent people would regard the conduct as dishonest.
The Tribunal found breaches of Principles 1, 2, and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, including failure to uphold the rule of law and to act with integrity, and a breach of Outcome 5.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
Although the solicitor had no previous disciplinary findings and presented medical evidence relating to her health, the Tribunal determined that no exceptional circumstances justified a lesser sanction. Referring to authority, including Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharma, it concluded that dishonesty ordinarily requires removal from the profession.
The Tribunal ordered that the solicitor be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and pay £19,365 in costs.