Solicitor Paul Andrew Smith struck off for misleading court, client, and opponents
A solicitor who misled his client, opposing lawyers and the court about key medical evidence in a personal injury case has been struck off the Roll of Solicitors after admitting dishonesty and lack of integrity. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Paul Andrew Smith, admitted in 2002, had knowingly concealed medical records that undermined his client’s case and submitted misleading information to the court.
The Tribunal, chaired by Ms A Banks, with Mr J Johnston and Ms E Keen, dealt with the matter on the papers following an agreed outcome between Smith and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The hearing took place on 26 September 2025, and judgment was issued on 2 October 2025.
Smith’s misconduct arose while he was acting for a client, referred to as Client A, who had instructed his firm in connection with two separate personal injury claims. The first related to a fall in a supermarket in April 2018, during which the firm obtained Client A’s medical records, including maternity and antenatal notes. These records showed that she had intended to deliver her second child by elective Caesarean section.
Embed from Getty Images
Later that year, in July 2018, Client A was injured in a road traffic accident while pregnant and subsequently gave birth via Caesarean section. She later brought a second claim alleging that the crash had forced her to undergo the surgical delivery rather than a natural birth, forming part of her claim for damages.
Smith, who handled the second claim, rediscovered the earlier medical records in August 2022. The notes revealed that Client A had already planned for a Caesarean section — evidence that effectively destroyed the claim’s credibility. In an internal note, Smith described the discovery as “catastrophic” to the case’s prospects.
Despite this, Smith did not disclose the records. On 20 September 2022, he wrote to Client A stating that he did not have the birth plan or medical notes and even prepared a List of Documents confirming that position. The following day, during a telephone conversation, he again failed to correct the false statement.
In October 2022, Smith drafted a witness statement for Client A to sign, asserting that further steps would be taken to locate any missing medical notes. The statement was filed at court and served on the defendants, accompanied by a Statement of Truth signed by Client A. Later, in December 2022, Smith emailed both the court and opposing solicitors claiming that all relevant medical records had been disclosed — even though he was still in possession of the withheld documents.
It was not until January 2023 that Smith admitted internally that he had the records all along. His firm reported the matter to the SRA shortly afterwards, prompting a regulatory investigation.
The Tribunal concluded that Smith’s behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct. It found multiple breaches of the SRA Principles 2019, including the duties to uphold the rule of law, act with integrity, and maintain public trust. It also found breaches of paragraphs 1.4 and 6.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors.
“The Respondent failed in his duty to inform his client about relevant evidence that he held,” the Tribunal said. “He made untrue representations to his client, to the court and to the defendants’ legal representatives. His actions caused the client to sign a false Statement of Truth.”
Smith admitted dishonesty, lack of integrity, and all breaches alleged. The Tribunal ruled that striking him off was the only proportionate sanction. “The Respondent’s conduct was prolonged, dishonest, and caused significant harm to the reputation of the profession,” it concluded.
Smith, who was non-practising at the time of the hearing, was ordered to pay £7,500 in costs. The Tribunal said the sanction was necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal system.
Its order stated: “The Tribunal ordered that Paul Andrew Smith, solicitor, be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, and further ordered that he pay the costs of and incidental to this application, fixed at £7,500.”