Tribunal orders strike off after solicitor admitted dishonest lease witnessing
A solicitor has been struck off the Roll after admitting he falsely signed two property leases, claiming he had witnessed signatures that were never made in his presence. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that Jack Anthony Medlicott be removed from the Roll of Solicitors following an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The tribunal’s judgment, dated 20 April 2026, found that while practising as a partner at MSB Solicitors, Medlicott signed two leases between 26 and 27 April 2022 stating he had witnessed the signature of “Person B” when this was untrue.
According to the tribunal documents, Medlicott met a client away from the office and provided two unsigned leases relating to separate properties. The client signed both leases in Medlicott’s presence and then asked him to sign as witness for another individual identified as Person B, despite Person B not being present.
The judgment stated that Medlicott initially refused the request before agreeing after the client asked him to do him a “favour”. He signed and printed his name on both leases, adding his office address and occupation as a solicitor.
The tribunal found Medlicott knew the signatures had not been witnessed and acknowledged he had never met Person B. It concluded that his conduct breached principles relating to honesty, integrity and maintaining public trust in the profession.
The matter came to the attention of the SRA after reports were made by both the law firm and Greater Manchester Police in August 2022. Tribunal documents also stated that Medlicott initially denied signing the leases when questioned by police before correcting his account shortly afterwards.
In mitigation, Medlicott said he believed the signatures would later be validated through a video call process involving the tenant. However, the tribunal found this did not alter the fact that the leases falsely stated the signatures had already been witnessed in person.
The tribunal determined that the misconduct involved dishonesty and stated that striking off was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. It also ordered Medlicott to pay £15,000 in costs.
The judgment noted that Medlicott had cooperated with the investigation and expressed remorse, but concluded the case did not fall within the exceptional circumstances required to avoid removal from the profession.