Tribunal finds solicitor not guilty of misleading client, rejecting dishonesty allegations
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has dismissed allegations that solicitor David Mark Turner misled a client about the outcome of a court hearing while practising at Kitson Boyce LLP, ending a protracted investigation into his conduct.
In a detailed judgment released following a hearing held on 21–22 August 2025, the three-member tribunal—chaired by Mr E Nally with Mrs A Sprawson and Dr S Bown—found the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had not proved its case. The SDT ruled that Mr Turner did not act dishonestly or without integrity, despite some of his communications with a client being described as “misleading on their face”.
Mr Turner, admitted as a solicitor in 1992, had been a partner in the firm’s litigation team. The case arose from an incident in January 2019, when he represented Client A, a small building company, in a commercial dispute. After a summary judgment hearing at the Technology and Construction Court, the opposing party succeeded in their claim.
Embed from Getty Images
The SRA alleged that Mr Turner failed to inform his client of the true outcome and provided misleading updates between 21 January and 18 March 2019, in breach of Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. The regulator further argued that his conduct was dishonest and undermined public confidence in the profession.
During the hearing, the tribunal examined Mr Turner’s email exchanges with both counsel and the client. Counsel’s email sent on the day of the hearing clearly set out that judgment had been entered against the client. However, Mr Turner’s follow-up messages appeared to suggest that the outcome was uncertain, including one which read: “The truth is, [the judge] did not give much away, but I will update you in full tomorrow.”
Another message stated that it was “difficult to make the call either way at this point”, which the tribunal agreed was inaccurate. A third email, sent in March 2019, claimed that a decision was still pending. The panel found that, while these statements were misleading, they did not meet the threshold for professional misconduct.
Mr Turner told the tribunal that he had misunderstood parts of counsel’s update and wanted to wait for the written judgment before confirming the result to his client. He said his priority was to ensure the accuracy of his advice, not to conceal information. The SDT accepted that explanation.
The panel applied the test for integrity set out in Wingate v SRA [2018], and the dishonesty test from Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]. It concluded that Mr Turner’s belief that judgment had not yet been formally issued was genuinely held, even if mistaken. There was no evidence that he intended to mislead.
The tribunal also noted a range of positive character references, including one from the very client involved in the case. Client A described Mr Turner as “considerate, frank and objective” and expressed no grievance.
While acknowledging that several of his emails were poorly worded, the panel said:
“Solicitors are held to high standards, but not to a counsel of perfection. Not every error or misjudgment amounts to misconduct.”
Consequently, the SDT dismissed both the integrity and dishonesty allegations.
Although cleared of wrongdoing, Mr Turner was ordered to pay £10,854 towards the SRA’s legal costs. The tribunal said the case had been properly brought based on the information the regulator possessed at the time.
No disciplinary sanction was imposed. The judgment brings an end to a four-year regulatory process that began after Mr Turner self-reported the issue to the SRA in 2021.
Order: Allegations dismissed; costs fixed at £10,854.