Sarah Reynolds altered a cheque and a letter without client’s consent but Tribunal found no intent to deceive
A solicitor who altered the date on a cheque and edited a client letter without authorisation has been cleared of dishonesty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which accepted she had acted unwisely but without deceitful intent.
Sarah Reynolds, who worked at the south-east law firm Parfitt Cresswell, admitted making changes to documents while serving her notice period in 2022. With just weeks left before leaving the firm, she discovered an unregistered Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for a client. Attempting to resolve the issue quickly, Reynolds altered the date on a signed £82 cheque—from January 2021 to January 2022—and amended a client letter to explain the change.
Though the edits were made without consulting or seeking approval from the client, the SDT ruled last week that Reynolds had not behaved dishonestly. The tribunal accepted that she believed the documents would be reviewed before being sent to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and had planned to later visit the client to obtain retrospective consent.
The SDT acknowledged that Reynolds’s actions were “improper and unwise,” but concluded that “ordinary decent people would not regard them as dishonest.” It noted that her intentions were rooted in a desire to complete outstanding work before her departure, not to mislead.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe case offers a rare glimpse into the pressures legal professionals can face in balancing compliance and efficiency. Reynolds, who has been a solicitor since 2007, told the tribunal she was under significant strain, juggling a demanding workload and family responsibilities, including caring for two children with medical conditions.
Despite the seriousness of the breach, the SDT credited her with a strong sense of client loyalty and “a desire for perfection” which sometimes led her to act impulsively. It said Reynolds worked into the early hours to resolve pending tasks and was attempting to ensure the client’s affairs were properly managed.
Reynolds provided 13 character references, including one from a former supervisor, which all supported the tribunal’s assessment that she lacked any propensity for dishonesty.
The tribunal also took issue with the scale of the prosecution, calling out the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for what Reynolds’s representative described as a disproportionate response. The SRA had deployed seven fee-earners to handle the case and sought costs of £23,550. Ultimately, the SDT reduced this amount, ordering Reynolds to pay £11,750 in costs along with a £5,500 fine.
The case raises questions about proportionality and discretion in regulatory actions. Reynolds’s representative argued that the SRA had pursued a “straightforward case involving a single, discrete issue” as though it were a complex matter of public interest.
The SDT agreed that no significant harm had resulted from Reynolds’s conduct, particularly as the documents were intercepted before being relied upon by the OPG. Nonetheless, the incident serves as a reminder to solicitors that even well-intentioned shortcuts can result in disciplinary action.
The case underscores the importance of client consent and transparency, but also highlights how mitigating circumstances, personal integrity, and professional pressure can influence outcomes in regulatory proceedings.
