Solicitor Elizabeth Forrest faces tribunal over 16 years of client failures

Elizabeth Forrest referred to disciplinary tribunal over long-running court of protection breaches

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has referred solicitor Elizabeth Forrest to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) over allegations she failed to protect the financial and property interests of a vulnerable client across a period spanning more than 16 years. The referral was made following a prosecution decision dated 17 April 2025, with the outcome published by the regulator on 18 September 2025. The matter now rests with the independent tribunal, which will determine the case.

Forrest, who practised at Meikles Solicitors LLP of 2 Clyde Terrace, Spennymoor, County Durham, is alleged to have committed a series of failures while acting under Court of Protection orders in relation to the affairs of a client, referred to as Client A. The allegations, which the SDT has confirmed amount to a case to answer, centre on her conduct between June 2006 and September 2022.

The SRA stated that, between June 2006 and May 2015, Forrest failed to comply with the requirements of the Court of Protection order while acting as Receiver or Deputy for Client A’s property and financial matters. She is accused of not transferring, or failing to take adequate steps to transfer, the title of Client A’s property into the client’s name when instructed to do so by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). She is also said to have failed to address issues regarding the tenancy at the property and to place that tenancy on a formal footing when directed by the OPG. In addition, it is alleged that she failed to ensure that Client A received the benefit of property rental payments during this time.

The allegations continue into the subsequent period from May 2015 to September 2022. Forrest is accused of once again failing to act on instructions to effect the transfer of title of the property into her client’s name. She is further alleged to have failed to take adequate steps to commence proceedings for breach of trust in relation to the property.

In a third strand of the case, the SRA alleges that between June 2006 and June 2022, Forrest submitted annual reports to the OPG that she signed with a statement of truth, knowing that the reports contained information that was incomplete or inaccurate.

The SDT has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of these allegations, though no findings have yet been made. At this stage, the allegations remain unproven, and the tribunal will reach its own conclusions only after hearing the full evidence presented by both the SRA and Forrest. The independent tribunal process ensures that solicitors are held accountable for alleged breaches of professional obligations, but also that they are given the opportunity to respond in full before any sanction is imposed.

Meikles Solicitors LLP, where Forrest worked at the time of the matters under investigation, is listed by the SRA as the firm linked to the outcome notice. The firm itself is not subject to the proceedings, which are directed solely at the individual solicitor.

The SRA has emphasised that the publication of the decision to prosecute does not amount to a finding of misconduct. Instead, it marks the start of formal disciplinary proceedings. If the tribunal ultimately finds the allegations proven, potential sanctions range from fines and conditions on practice through to suspension or being struck off the roll of solicitors.

The case will proceed to a full hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the date of which has yet to be confirmed. Until then, the outcome remains uncertain, and Forrest is entitled to contest the allegations in full.