Tribunal finds the lawyer’s conduct breached key SRA rules after a search-order dispute
A former partner at global law firm Jones Day has been suspended from practice for two years after a disciplinary tribunal ruled on misconduct linked to a High Court finding of criminal contempt of court.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed the suspension on Raymond McKeeve, a registered foreign lawyer at the time of the events, following his admission of allegations arising from a 2022 High Court judgment. The tribunal also ordered him to pay £20,000 in costs.
The case stemmed from a message in which McKeeve instructed an IT manager to “burn it”, or words to that effect, in relation to electronic material held by his client. The instruction led to the deletion of a messaging application that contained communications between McKeeve, his client, and others. The material was subject to a court search order.
The High Court subsequently found McKeeve criminally liable for contempt of court. During the disciplinary proceedings, the tribunal heard that he had admitted the allegation in an agreed statement of facts.
Representing the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Tom Walker told the tribunal that the client was involved in an online grocery business and had engaged an individual who was still employed by another company. Concerns arose that there was confidential information that may have been shared in breach of employment obligations, leading to the search order. After learning of the order, McKeeve sent the “burn it” message to the IT manager, who then deleted the messaging app.
The tribunal heard that the conduct affected the administration of justice and resulted in a criminal contempt finding. However, the High Court did not conclude that McKeeve had engaged in a sustained attempt to mislead the court or conceal confidential information, although the deletion of the messaging application prevented investigators from examining communications that were subject to the search order.
In mitigation, McKeeve apologised to the tribunal and accepted responsibility for his conduct. He described the incident as an isolated act and acknowledged that his actions had fallen below the standards expected of a legal professional. In deciding the sanction, the tribunal accepted that the misconduct was an isolated incident rather than part of a planned course of dishonest conduct. It also took into account McKeeve’s remorse, insight into his wrongdoing and previously unblemished professional career before concluding that a two-year suspension, rather than striking him off the roll, was the appropriate sanction.
The SDT found that McKeeve had breached Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, together with Outcome 5.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, following the High Court’s finding that he was criminally liable for contempt of court. It ordered that his two-year suspension commence on 23 March 2026 and directed him to pay £20,000 towards the SRA’s costs.