Roger Paul Jackson accused of fake call notes, silent to SRA, clients’ cases left to die

SDT hears claims of fabricated notes, missed insurance and struck-out cases linked to Jackson

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has examined a bleak catalogue of alleged misconduct linked to former partner Roger Paul Jackson, after he failed to attend a three-day hearing held from 22 to 24 July 2019. With the chair, Mr P. Lewis, sitting alongside Mr R. Nicholas and Dr S. Bown, the panel pressed on in Jackson’s absence, noting he had engaged only sporadically with the process before going silent.

At the heart of the SRA’s case lay a stark allegation: that Jackson fabricated telephone attendance notes for conversations with a client identified as YE—calls YE insists never took place. The file contained two detailed notes, one said to record a 45-minute call in March 2013, another a 75-minute call in June 2013. YE told investigators he never spoke to Jackson, that the firm had no number on which it could have reached him, and that repeated requests for call records went unanswered. The Tribunal accepted YE’s written evidence and concluded the notes were fabricated—behaviour it said breached core professional principles and, judged by ordinary standards, was dishonest.

That was not the only charge. Investigators said Jackson failed to respond adequately—or at all—to multiple SRA communications during a regulatory probe. Letters and emails went out; replies did not come back. The Tribunal found this fell far short of the obligation to deal with the regulator in an open, timely and co-operative manner, and it held that he failed to achieve required outcomes under the Code of Conduct.

The case broadened further with allegations that Jackson failed to arrange after-the-event insurance for clients, leaving them exposed to adverse costs risks. In YE’s matter, a Notice of Funding had indicated insurance cover up to £50,000, yet later enquiries could not trace any policy in the client’s name. In other files—those of AS and SS—template letters told clients the firm could arrange ATE cover and invited consent, but investigators could not find policies on the files. One internal note fretted that a previous handler had not taken out any insurance, which tallied with client complaints.

For those same clients, consequences spiralled. Case papers describe missed deadlines and procedural failures: trials not properly prepared, bundles not lodged, and claims stayed or struck out. In YE’s case, the claim was struck out and costs were awarded against him. In AS’s case, the proceedings were stayed; the client was not told promptly, and a later bid to restore the claim failed. SS’s trial window approached without adequate notice; his claim fell away, and he was told he had breached terms by failing to keep the firm updated with his address. The Tribunal recorded allegations that settlement offers were made without proper instructions, and that pleadings for SS were not appropriately translated or certified, contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules.

Overlaying all of this was a conflict-of-interest theme. The SRA alleged Jackson did not notify clients or his firm about his connection to M&S Vehicle Hire Ltd, a credit hire company in which his wife was a director and shareholder, nor did he disclose a referral arrangement involving his clients and that company. The Tribunal said the conduct alleged offended fundamental duties of integrity, transparency and client trust.

While Jackson stayed away, the Second and Third Respondents—represented by counsel—faced separate allegations about reporting duties to the SRA and communications with clients over case failures. The Tribunal reviewed a thick run of correspondence, cost schedules and witness evidence from the SRA’s forensic investigator, setting out timelines for missed responses and the cascade of client harm.

The picture presented to the panel was grim: attendance notes that never matched reality, insurance that never materialised, claims that withered in procedural fog, and a regulator forced to chase answers that did not arrive. Whatever the eventual sanctions landscape across the respondents, the Tribunal’s findings on the proved allegations against Jackson paint a disturbing narrative: when candour collapses, client protection collapses with it.