Tribunal finds solicitor sent intimidating emails to prevent complaint
A solicitor has been suspended from practice after a tribunal found she sent intimidating emails to a client in an attempt to prevent a complaint being made to regulators.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that Kate Jane Austen be suspended for 12 months following admissions that her conduct breached professional standards.
The tribunal heard that, while working as a consultant solicitor at Dunn & Baker, Ms Austen sent three emails to a former client on 20 January 2023. The communications were found to be oppressive and inappropriate, containing threats of legal action and serious consequences if the client pursued a complaint.
The emails warned that the firm would seek an injunction to prevent the client from making or continuing complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Ombudsman. They also referred to potential imprisonment and liability for legal costs if such an injunction were breached.
The tribunal found that the solicitor’s intention was to dissuade the client from making a complaint or to encourage its withdrawal. It concluded that the tone and content of the emails amounted to an abuse of litigation tactics and were designed to intimidate.
The case arose from a dispute over legal fees following earlier divorce proceedings handled by the firm. After mediation, the client agreed to settle the matter, but later indicated an intention to raise concerns with regulatory bodies.
The tribunal determined that the solicitor’s actions carried a clear risk of undermining regulatory oversight by discouraging complaints. It also found that the conduct had the potential to damage public confidence in the legal profession.
Ms Austen admitted the allegations and accepted that her behaviour lacked integrity. The tribunal acknowledged that the misconduct occurred on a single day and that she had demonstrated remorse and insight. It also noted that she had cooperated with the investigation and had an otherwise unblemished career.
However, given the seriousness of the conduct and its deliberate nature, the tribunal concluded that a suspension was necessary to maintain professional standards and protect the public.
In addition to the suspension, the tribunal imposed a restriction order for a further 24 months following her return to practice. During that period, she may only work in a role approved by the SRA. She was also ordered to pay costs of £25,000.