Disgraced solicitor Harry Cottam failed to hide behind mental health claims

Cottam’s final bid to clear his name over misuse of client money ends in a crushing courtroom defeat.

Harry Francis Cottam, a once-established Birmingham solicitor, has failed in his bid to overturn a damning disciplinary finding that saw him struck off the roll for misusing client funds to prop up his failing law firm.

The High Court this week upheld a 2023 ruling by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) which found Cottam guilty of lacking integrity and acting dishonestly after transferring £175,000 of client money into his firm’s office account. The decision, delayed in publication pending the appeal, is now expected to be released following this final judgement.

Mr Justice MacDonald delivered a scathing assessment of Cottam’s appeal, rejecting every one of his eleven arguments. “The tribunal delivered a comprehensive and closely reasoned decision,” he said, firmly dismissing the idea that the SDT had made factual errors or misunderstood key evidence.

Cottam, who qualified in 1991, was the sole director at Cottams Solicitors before the firm was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in October 2018. The watchdog’s intervention revealed two matters involving improper transfers of client money to the office account — funds that were never intended for operational use.

During the SDT hearing, Cottam admitted that the transfers were improper and that he had orchestrated them. He claimed they were made under extreme stress and cited a 2015 fire — potentially arson — at the firm’s offices as the catalyst for both his firm’s decline and a deterioration in his mental health.

However, the tribunal found that the medical evidence Cottam relied on postdated the period in which the misconduct occurred. He had continued working throughout that time, and there was no evidence he was incapable of functioning. MacDonald J agreed with the SDT’s assessment: “There was no evidence to suggest he was unable to function,” he affirmed.

The SDT concluded that the fire, while devastating, did not excuse the misuse of client funds. It found Cottam had acted dishonestly by using those funds to bolster the financial standing of his firm.

On appeal, Cottam accused the SDT of delivering a contradictory decision and of misrepresenting or overlooking key parts of the evidence. He also attempted to discredit a 2018 interview with an SRA official by arguing he had not been mentally fit at the time.

But that argument, too, was roundly rejected. The judge highlighted that Cottam had told the SRA interviewer he was fit and well and had no medical conditions, even stating he could have declined the interview but chose not to. There was no medical evidence suggesting otherwise. “There is plainly no merit in that argument,” MacDonald J ruled.

Interestingly, Cottam did not challenge the severity of the sanction — the strike-off itself — only the tribunal’s findings. The High Court has now upheld the original punishment in full.

Ahead of the appeal hearing, Cottam also requested anonymity, arguing that being publicly named would damage his mental health and make him a “social leper.” However, that plea was also refused. The court noted that the most recent medical evidence, dated December 2023, only indicated general vulnerability. He was not on medication, not receiving therapy, and confirmed he was employed at the time of the hearing.

Justice MacDonald was unequivocal: “I was satisfied that it could not be said in this case that non-disclosure [was] necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.”

Cottam, who once held himself out as a trusted legal professional, now faces the reality of permanent disbarment — and a professional reputation that lies in ruins.