Absent solicitor hit with £17,500 fine as tribunal proves misconduct and imposes strict practice limits
A solicitor has been handed a £17,500 fine and hit with restrictions on his practice after a disciplinary tribunal found allegations of misconduct proved, despite his absence from the hearing.
Robin Edward Stubbings, a solicitor bound by the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019 and the SRA Principles 2019, was accused of breaching his professional obligations. When his case came before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), he chose not to attend.
The tribunal examined the circumstances of his absence and concluded that Stubbings had voluntarily opted not to be present. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which brought the case, applied for the proceedings to continue in his absence. That request was granted, paving the way for the hearing to proceed without the respondent.
Over the course of the proceedings, the tribunal reviewed the allegations in detail. It determined that the case presented by the SRA met the required burden of proof. Every allegation against Stubbings was found proved.
Embed from Getty ImagesWhile the specifics of the breaches were not publicly elaborated in the summary, the findings were serious enough to warrant a substantial financial penalty. The SDT imposed a fine of £17,500. In addition to the financial hit, the tribunal ruled that Stubbings’ ability to practise would be restricted going forward. These restrictions, the details of which were not outlined in the brief, are designed to safeguard the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.
Proceeding in a solicitor’s absence is not a step taken lightly by the tribunal. Such a decision often follows careful consideration of whether the absent party has been given fair opportunity to engage with the process. In this case, the panel concluded that Stubbings had every chance to attend and defend himself but had chosen not to.
The SRA, as the regulator of solicitors in England and Wales, has a statutory duty to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession. The tribunal’s decision reflects that priority, sending a clear signal that failing to engage with disciplinary proceedings will not halt accountability.
A voluntary absence from a hearing does not erase the allegations, nor does it shield a solicitor from the consequences of misconduct findings. In fact, it can intensify the perception of disregard for the process, reinforcing the tribunal’s resolve to take robust action.
The penalty imposed combines financial deterrence with restrictions intended to limit the risk of future breaches. While the fine itself is significant, the practice conditions attached to Stubbings’ future professional activities may have the greater long-term impact.
The outcome serves as a stark reminder to solicitors that the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct are not optional. They form the backbone of professional integrity in the legal field. Breaching them, especially to the extent that allegations are proven at tribunal level, can have career-altering repercussions.
For clients, the case is reassurance that the profession’s watchdog will act decisively to address misconduct, even when the solicitor under scrutiny declines to participate. For solicitors, it is a warning that non-engagement is no shield against sanction.
Stubbings now faces the dual weight of a £17,500 fine and restrictions on his practice – a lasting mark on his professional record that will be noted by regulators, clients, and colleagues alike
