SDT bans Hubert James after misconduct and dishonest regulator declarations
A solicitor who misled courts, concealed prior disciplinary sanctions and falsely claimed to be providing a free legal service has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found his conduct dishonest and corrosive to public trust. Hubert James, admitted in 2005, faced a raft of allegations covering unauthorised appearances, practising in of regulatory rules and giving false explanations to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The Tribunal concluded that his behaviour was deliberate, sustained and fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Roll.
The case tracked back to mortgage possession proceedings at Lambeth County Court between 2009 and 2010. James filed notices of acting and appeared under the banner “JPS Legal Services,” despite there being no such solicitors’ practice recognised by the SRA. When challenged by District Judge Martin Zimmels during a last-minute application to suspend a warrant, James described himself variously as a legal executive and a solicitor. The judge dismissed the application and later provided a statement confirming the irregularities, including that the notice of acting purported to be from a firm that did not exist and that James had no right of audience in the circumstances. In 2011, the ILEX Disciplinary Tribunal found that James had carried out reserved legal activities without authorisation, fined him £2,000 and ordered costs.
Despite those findings, James subsequently applied for practising certificates covering 2012/13 and 2013/14. On the SRA forms he failed to make a frank disclosure of the ILEX sanction, at one point ticking “No” to the question that specifically asks about such disciplinary events. The SDT held that this was a serious failure to act with integrity and an attempt to mislead the regulator about his disciplinary history.
Embed from Getty ImagesA further strand unfolded in Birmingham proceedings in 2013 for a client referred to as Mr C. There, James went on the record as solicitor and corresponded from an address linked to him while using stationery for “LE Limited” (LEL). When pressed by opposing solicitor Christopher Kilroy for regulatory details, James pivoted to a different explanation: that LEL was a small non-profit providing free legal services, with indemnity cover, and that he acted only in an advisory capacity with no fees charged. However, bank records later showed a £3,000 payment from Mr C to “Hubert James” in May 2013 and a £600 transaction in November 2013. The Tribunal rejected James’s account, finding that his description of LEL as a free service was false and crafted to evade the regulatory framework while seeking costs and conducting litigation.
The SRA issued a statutory notice under section 44B seeking documents about LEL and Mr C’s matter. James’s replies were evasive and inconsistent: he claimed to be self-employed, to have received no remuneration, to have issued no bills, and to have provided only free advisory work. He also shifted addresses and failed to engage meaningfully with follow-up correspondence. The SDT found that these responses lacked integrity and, in key respects, were dishonest.
At the disciplinary hearing, James sought an adjournment citing travel, limited internet access and back pain. The Tribunal accommodated his medical needs with frequent breaks but refused to delay the case, noting the age and seriousness of the allegations and that he had known of them for months. It admitted late evidence where fair but proceeded to judgment.
Assessing culpability, the SDT emphasised the pattern: filing court documents under a non-existent firm; asserting rights of audience without proper authorisation; concealing an earlier disciplinary sanction when seeking practising certificates; misrepresenting the nature of LEL while seeking to operate as if it were a regulated firm; and giving misleading answers to the regulator. The conduct undermined the administration of justice, failed to meet the standards of integrity expected of solicitors, and eroded public confidence in legal services. Dishonesty was found proved in relation to his failure to disclose the ILEX findings and his false explanations about LEL.
In sanction, the Tribunal said there was “no room for leniency.” Striking off was necessary to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. James was also ordered to pay the SRA’s costs. The decision stands as a stark warning: misusing titles, bypassing the regulatory regime, hiding past discipline and offering false accounts to the SRA will end careers.