Solicitor struck off after tribunal upholds dishonesty and integrity breaches
A solicitor has been struck off the roll following findings of dishonesty and misleading conduct in two separate client matters, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has ruled.
Michael Carl Lillywhite was removed from the profession after a hearing held in February 2026, where the tribunal considered allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
The case related to events in early 2023 while Mr Lillywhite was practising as a partner at a law firm. The tribunal found that he had created and backdated a legal document in a way that gave a false impression about the timing of its execution.
The tribunal determined that the document had been altered to suggest it had been signed before the completion of a property sale, when in fact it had been executed at a later date. It found that this conduct was dishonest and misleading.
A second allegation concerned an email sent to a client in March 2023. The tribunal found that the solicitor failed to disclose that a draft will had previously been sent to an incorrect address, instead giving the impression that no error had occurred.
In both instances, the tribunal concluded that the conduct breached professional principles, including those relating to integrity, honesty, and maintaining public trust. It also found that the actions were misleading within the meaning of the professional code.
Applying the legal test for dishonesty, the tribunal determined that the solicitor’s actions would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary standards. It also concluded that the conduct lacked integrity and involved deliberate steps rather than isolated errors.
The tribunal noted that the misconduct occurred across two separate incidents involving different clients, which it considered when assessing the overall seriousness of the case.
Mitigating factors were presented, including the absence of personal financial gain, a previously unblemished career, and medical evidence relating to the solicitor’s mental health at the time. However, the tribunal found that these factors did not amount to exceptional circumstances.
It concluded that the nature and extent of the dishonesty required the most serious sanction to maintain public confidence in the profession. Mr Lillywhite was therefore struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £15,000 in costs.
The tribunal stated that, in cases involving dishonesty, a strike off is the usual outcome unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.