Tribunal suspends solicitor for two months over serious conflict of interest in assault case
Solicitor Landreth Adonis Daniel has been suspended for two months after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he acted in a clear and serious conflict of interest while representing both an alleged assault victim and the defendant accused of assaulting her.
Daniel, a criminal defence solicitor, came under investigation after Thames Valley Police made a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on 14 November 2022. The report concerned his conduct in representing two clients, referred to as Person A and Person B, in related criminal proceedings.
According to the SRA’s findings, Daniel had previously represented Person A in unrelated criminal matters. Despite this existing solicitor–client relationship, he went on to act for Person B, who had been charged with assaulting Person A, his partner.
The Tribunal found that by taking instructions from Person B in those circumstances, Daniel had placed himself in an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of his two clients. It ruled that he knew or ought to have known that a conflict of interest, or at least a significant risk of one, existed.
Embed from Getty Images
The situation was made worse on 3 February 2022, the day before Person B’s trial, when Daniel provided legal advice to Person A in relation to a witness summons requiring her to attend court and give evidence.
This, the Tribunal concluded, compounded the conflict and demonstrated a serious lapse of professional judgment.
The SRA alleged that Daniel had breached the SRA Principles 2019 and the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, which require solicitors to act with integrity, maintain public trust, and avoid conflicts of interest.
During the hearing, the SDT acknowledged Daniel’s cooperation and the absence of any evidence of dishonesty or personal gain. However, it found that his decision to act for both parties was reckless and incompatible with the duties owed to clients and the wider administration of justice.
In its judgment, the Tribunal said Daniel’s conduct “fell far below the standards expected of a competent and experienced solicitor,” and that his failure to identify and manage the conflict was particularly serious given his role as a senior criminal practitioner.
The SDT noted that Person A had been in a vulnerable position as both a past client and the alleged victim in the case. By continuing to represent Person B, Daniel had created a situation in which confidential information from one client could have been used to the detriment of another — a scenario that the Tribunal described as “an obvious and serious professional failing.”
While the Tribunal accepted that Daniel did not act dishonestly or with intent to mislead, it emphasised that the absence of dishonesty did not excuse the breach. It found that the solicitor’s failure to recognise and address such a clear conflict undermined public confidence in the profession.
The SDT therefore imposed a two-month suspension, describing it as “necessary and proportionate to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and to uphold professional standards.”
The Tribunal also made clear that solicitors must exercise constant vigilance in identifying potential conflicts, especially when representing clients in criminal proceedings where relationships and allegations can rapidly evolve.
The SRA welcomed the decision, stating that the ruling reinforced the importance of independence and integrity in legal practice, particularly in sensitive cases involving violence and vulnerable individuals.
Daniel’s suspension will remain in effect for the fixed two-month period, after which he will be permitted to resume practice, subject to any further conditions imposed by the SRA.
The case serves as a reminder to practitioners that conflicts of interest, even when unintended, can result in serious disciplinary action, and that solicitors must always ensure they act solely in the best interests of their clients — and never both sides.