Tribunal issues reprimand to ex-solicitor Claire Parry for failing to comply with the Ombudsman and the SRA
A solicitor who stopped practising nearly a decade ago has been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for failing to respond to regulatory investigations stretching back over seven years.
Claire Letitia Parry, who ran CLP Care Funding Solicitor before it ceased trading in 2016, was found to have ignored multiple directions from the Legal Ombudsman and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over an unresolved client complaint dating back to 2015. Despite no longer holding a practising certificate, Parry was held accountable for professional misconduct.
The SDT heard that Parry, admitted as a solicitor in 2003, had failed to refund a former client £500 and pay £200 compensation ordered by the Ombudsman following a complaint about poor service. When she didn’t pay, the client was ultimately compensated through the SRA’s Compensation Fund.
From April 2016 until as late as January 2024, Parry remained uncooperative—first with the Legal Ombudsman and then with the SRA. During its hearing, the SDT noted that she failed to attend proceedings and did not engage with the process at any stage. The tribunal proceeded in her absence.
Despite the clear breach of professional standards, the SDT opted for leniency in its final ruling. While the panel concluded that her actions undermined public trust in solicitors, it stopped short of finding that she lacked integrity.
“There was little doubt that the respondent’s conduct would have eroded public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession,” the judgment stated, “but the facts did not substantiate that [Parry] had lacked integrity.”
Embed from Getty ImagesHints of mitigating circumstances were alluded to during the proceedings. The SDT said the SRA’s evidence suggested Parry may have experienced a traumatic or difficult life event during the period in question, possibly affecting her judgement.
The panel also criticised the lengthy delay in resolving the matter, noting that by the time the second phase of allegations—her failure to engage with the SRA—was brought forward, Parry had already been out of practice for nearly six years.
Citing both the long delay and the possibility of personal difficulties, the tribunal concluded that a reprimand was the “fairest and most proportionate sanction” available.
“She had direct control over her actions,” the panel stated, “and as an experienced solicitor she should not have conducted herself in the way that she did.”
Parry was also ordered to pay £2,500 towards the cost of the proceedings. No further restrictions or bans were issued.
