Paul Andrew Smith struck off after concealing medical notes he knew would ruin client’s case
A personal injury solicitor has been struck off the roll after deliberately withholding medical evidence he knew would be “catastrophic” to his client’s claim. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Paul Andrew Smith acted dishonestly and without integrity when he concealed crucial maternity records that undermined his client’s case and misled both the court and opposing solicitors.
The ruling, published on 13 October 2025, confirmed that Mr Smith admitted to acting dishonestly, though he offered no explanation for his motives. The SDT approved a statement of agreed facts and outcome submitted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which concluded that his misconduct warranted permanent removal from the profession.
“The tribunal was unable to determine his motives,” the judgment stated, “but it was clear that this conduct was sustained over a number of months.” It added that Mr Smith’s actions constituted serious misconduct.
Embed from Getty ImagesAt the time of the events, Mr Smith was employed at Nottingham Rotheras, now known as Rothera Bray, and had been a qualified solicitor since 2002.
The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a sequence of incidents beginning in 2018, when the firm acted for a woman identified as Client A in a personal injury claim following a supermarket fall. She was in the early stages of pregnancy, and her medical records — including antenatal and maternity notes — were obtained by the firm.
Although Mr Smith was not involved in that initial matter, he later represented the same client in a second claim. This case related to a road traffic accident, in which she was a passenger and subsequently suffered abdominal pain. The client later gave birth by caesarean section rather than naturally.
Filed in July 2021, the claim asserted that Client A had always intended to have a natural birth. The defendants challenged this, arguing that her birth plan showed she had planned for an elective caesarean section.
In August 2022, Mr Smith located the earlier medical records from the first claim and discovered that they indeed confirmed the defendants’ position. The birth plan clearly stated that Client A’s preference was for an elective caesarean. In a contemporaneous file note, he described this evidence as “catastrophic” to the case and expressed concern that disclosure could expose his client to a finding of fundamental dishonesty, which would remove her usual costs protection in personal injury litigation.
Despite this, Mr Smith concealed the records. Shortly afterwards, the court ordered disclosure of the birth plan and associated notes, along with a witness statement explaining Client A’s post-birth intentions for plastic surgery to address scarring from the procedure.
Mr Smith informed his client that he did not have the documents and had her sign a witness statement falsely asserting that she had always intended to give birth naturally and that the firm was still trying to locate the relevant records. He later admitted that this could have increased her risk of being found in contempt of court.
In December 2022, he emailed the court and opposing solicitors confirming that all documents within the client’s possession and control had been disclosed. One month later, during an internal meeting, Mr Smith finally admitted that he had in fact been holding the medical records all along. The firm immediately reported him to the SRA.
The agreed statement of facts included no mitigation or explanation from Mr Smith. The SDT found that he had acted dishonestly towards his client, the court, and the opposing solicitors. It concluded that the integrity expected of a solicitor had been wholly undermined by his conduct.
Mr Smith was struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £7,500 in costs. The SDT described his behaviour as a serious and sustained breach of trust that damaged public confidence in the legal profession.