Tribunal rules dishonesty despite no harm caused, suspending solicitor michael goodwin
A solicitor who dishonestly altered an email in what he later admitted was a “moment of panic” has been suspended from practice for a year.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that Michael Peter Goodwin, a 40-year-old residential conveyancer at Talbots Law in the Midlands, had acted dishonestly when he changed a client’s email record to hide an earlier mistake.
Goodwin, who qualified in August 2021, was handling a transaction for Client A in July 2023. On 17 July, he sent a completion statement to the wrong email address, which had been mistakenly entered into the firm’s case management system. When the message bounced back, he resent the statement to the correct address the following day.
To cover up the error, he amended the forwarded version of the 17 July email so that it showed the correct address, then told the client: “I understand you’ve not received the attached.”
Embed from Getty ImagesIn his self-report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Goodwin admitted that he altered the email to stop the client realising the message had previously gone astray. He explained that embarrassment and anxiety over what might have been a data breach drove the decision.
The firm later reviewed his file, placed him on paid leave, and two weeks later Goodwin agreed to resign immediately under a settlement agreement.
The SRA accepted that Goodwin had been under “considerable emotional strain” at the time, supported by medical evidence of longstanding health issues. It acknowledged that while ordinary people might sympathise with his personal difficulties, the act of altering the email would still be viewed as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
The regulator noted that the only possible benefit to Goodwin was avoiding embarrassment and disciplinary scrutiny. Crucially, neither the client nor the transaction suffered any harm. The firm ultimately decided that no data breach had occurred.
By the time the case reached tribunal, Goodwin had left the legal profession. The agreed facts recorded that he had recognised “the high-pressure environment of the sector was not conducive to his wellbeing” and had sought alternative work.
Despite the lack of harm and his resignation, the SDT stressed that dishonesty could not be excused. The usual sanction in such cases is striking off the roll. However, after what it described as a “holistic assessment”, the panel concluded that exceptional circumstances applied.
In particular, the tribunal cited the limited scope of the misconduct, the absence of harm, and Goodwin’s personal difficulties. While safeguarding public confidence required a sanction, striking off was deemed disproportionate. Instead, the panel imposed a 12-month suspension.
The ruling stated:
“Exceptional circumstances did exist in this case, given the nature and scope of the misconduct and the broader contextual factors surrounding the case. Nevertheless, the tribunal recognised the necessity to safeguard both the public and the reputation of the legal profession by curtailing the respondent’s right to practise, thereby mitigating the risk of future harm. However, it concluded that neither of these objectives justified striking him off the roll.”
Goodwin was also ordered to pay £12,500 in costs.
Unusually, the tribunal split over his application for anonymity. Goodwin argued that publication of his name would prejudice him due to medical reasons. While one lay member sided with him, the majority ruled that the principle of open justice outweighed personal hardship.
As a result, Goodwin’s name and the details of his suspension remain on the public record.