Convicted for illicit prison phone contact, the solicitor gets 4 months’ jail, suspended
A criminal law solicitor has been convicted for repeatedly contacting a client in prison by mobile phone, a forbidden line of communication that the court said encouraged further illegal messaging from behind bars. Angela Caroline Hudson, admitted to the Roll in 2010, pleaded guilty at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court on 7 March 2017 to an offence under sections 44 and 58 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The case centred on a two-and-a-half-month burst of illicit contact: 102 text messages between 28 January and 12 April 2016.
The court imposed four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, alongside a £115 victim surcharge and £85 in prosecution costs. The sentencing remarks noted the “sustained nature” of the conduct. Hudson immediately reported herself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after her arrest and later admitted the disciplinary allegation that flowed from the conviction.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Hudson, then running her own fledgling practice after years in criminal defence, had been under intense pressure to retain clients as local departments closed and competition bit hard. She used her personal mobile to field near-constant messages. In that blur of workload and anxiety, she replied to a client who was texting from prison—conduct that, however routine it may have felt in the moment, crossed a bright red line.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal found that her criminal conviction meant she failed to uphold the rule of law, failed to act with integrity, and failed to maintain public trust in the profession. It accepted that she had not set out to flout the law yet concluded her actions plainly undermined prison rules by effectively encouraging further illicit phone use. While she did not speak to the inmate by voice call, her repeated text replies fuelled an unlawful channel of communication. The SRA had already issued practice guidance warning solicitors about mobile phones in prisons; she did not follow it.
Context did matter. Mitigation painted a portrait of a lawyer promoted quickly amid cuts and closures, who launched a solo firm in 2016 only to be buffeted by hostility from competitors and relentless client demand. Friends and colleagues described a dedicated advocate who became isolated and overworked, making poor judgments under strain. The tribunal noted she ended the messages before police intervention, self-reported to the regulator, pleaded guilty, and offered open admissions throughout. It also accepted that the content of the messages themselves—had they been sent by lawful means—would have been unremarkable: diary logistics, visits, case updates.
Even so, harm followed. The tribunal stressed that the public relies on solicitors to respect legal boundaries, especially where prison security is concerned. Texting a prisoner, repeatedly, is not a technical slip; it corrodes the system that legal professionals are sworn to uphold.
Sanction sat on a knife-edge. The panel weighed strike-off against suspension, concluding the public interest would be better served by a lengthy suspension coupled with controls, rather than erasing a career they deemed salvageable in a supervised setting. Hudson was suspended from practice for 18 months from the date of the SDT hearing (16 January 2018). On expiry of that term, she faces a further 18 months of restrictions: no practice as a sole practitioner, sole manager, or sole owner. The tribunal highlighted that she had already been effectively out of practice for a year by choice, recognising the seriousness of her position.
In short, the SDT’s message was blunt: boundaries exist for a reason. A seasoned criminal solicitor cannot ignore prison rules, however frantic the workload or vulnerable the client. Hudson’s insight, remorse, and cooperation saved her from the ultimate professional penalty—but only just. The case stands as a stark warning to practitioners tempted to blur lines in the name of service: do not.