SDT found breaches of client-interest and anti-misleading rules, but not dishonesty or lack of integrity.
A misleading client report case has resulted in a £15,000 fine for solicitor Nicholas Nikola Stojanovic after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that he repeatedly gave inaccurate information to a client about a psychiatric report he had already received.
Stojanovic was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors on 1 July 2003 and joined Ramsdens Solicitors LLP in January 2022 as a Senior Associate in its Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team. The allegations arose from his conduct while working at the firm.
The client had instructed Ramsdens in January 2019 in relation to a complex clinical negligence claim arising from a failed operation. The claim had resulted in serious physical complications and had also affected the client’s mental health. Stojanovic took over conduct of the matter in January 2022.
Following a conference with counsel in January 2023, several medical experts were instructed to provide reports for the client’s case, including a psychiatric report from Dr Hosker. The client was anxious about the progress of the claim and regularly contacted Stojanovic for updates.
On 19 February 2024, Stojanovic received an email from a medical agency attaching Dr Hosker’s report, dated 5 February 2024. After initially experiencing password-access problems, he was able to access the report at about 10.23am that day.
However, on 20 March 2024, Stojanovic told the client during a telephone conversation that two of three new reports had been received but that the Hosker Report was still awaited. He also said that little could be done without it. The client became frustrated during the conversation, partly because of the delay, and indicated that he might instruct another solicitor.
On 28 March, Stojanovic emailed the client after a missed call and said there was “no change at this end”. The Tribunal found that, in the context of the earlier conversation, this implied that the Hosker Report had still not been received. In fact, Stojanovic had received it more than a month earlier.
On 19 April, Stojanovic again told the client that the Hosker Report was the only report still awaited. He said that once it arrived, he would set out the options available to move the claim forward. The Tribunal found this communication was also untrue and misleading.
The Hosker Report was eventually sent to the client on 14 May 2024, together with an advice letter. Two days later, Stojanovic sent a further letter setting out proposed next steps. On 20 May, when the client asked when the report had been received, Stojanovic confirmed that he had received it on 19 February.
The firm subsequently investigated the matter and reported it to the SRA. Stojanovic explained that he had not wanted to deal with the report immediately because he considered the claim difficult and believed he needed time to review the wider evidence and provide appropriate advice before sending the sensitive psychiatric report to the client.
The SRA alleged that the three communications breached Principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, as well as paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. The Tribunal found the factual allegations proved.
The Tribunal did not, however, find that Stojanovic had acted dishonestly. Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos, it found that he knew the report had been received but that his decisions were informed by his understanding of the client’s circumstances and his concern about the possible effect of receiving the report without appropriate advice and preparation. The Tribunal concluded that, viewed objectively, his conduct did not amount to dishonesty.
It also rejected the allegations that Stojanovic had acted without integrity or breached Principle 2. The Tribunal described his approach as fundamentally misguided and ill-judged, but found that it did not amount to a sufficient departure from the ethical standards of the profession to establish a lack of integrity.
The Tribunal did find breaches of Principle 7 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code. It concluded that providing misleading information about the report, particularly where it had not been disclosed as agreed, was not in the client’s best interests and breached the rule against misleading a client.
In considering the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal said Stojanovic should instead have raised his concerns through the firm’s management or compliance structures and sought appropriate supervision. It said he should also have considered an appropriate timetable for disclosure and maintained a clear contemporaneous record of his concerns, the steps taken and the reasons for his approach.
The Tribunal assessed the misconduct as involving medium culpability and medium harm. It considered the conduct deliberate in the sense that Stojanovic consciously chose to provide the information on each occasion, while also taking account of his genuine concern for the client’s welfare, early acceptance of the factual allegations, cooperation with the investigation, insight and remorse.
The misconduct was placed within Level 3 of the Tribunal’s Indicative Fine Bands, covering fines between £10,001 and £20,000. The SDT concluded that a £15,000 fine was proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.
Stojanovic was also ordered to pay £14,361 in costs. The Tribunal found the costs claimed by the SRA reasonable and proportionate and ordered the full amount to be paid. The final order was dated 22 September 2026.