Tribunal finds falsification of lease signatures by solicitor as a deliberate breach of professional duties, leading to strike off
A solicitor has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had falsely signed leases, claiming to have witnessed the signatures of a third party when he had not.
In the case of SRA v Medlicott, Jack Anthony Medlicott, a former partner at MSB Solicitors, admitted to signing two leases in April 2022, falsely stating that he had witnessed the signature of Person B. However, Person B had neither signed the leases in Medlicott’s presence nor had Medlicott actually witnessed the signatures.
The misconduct came to light when Greater Manchester Police and the law firm reported the issue to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in August 2022. Medlicott had been asked to sign the leases for two properties, one of which was Property A, but had signed them falsely asserting that Person B had signed them in his presence.
The tribunal found that Medlicott initially refused Client A’s request but later signed the leases after being persuaded. Medlicott’s actions were viewed as deliberate breaches of his professional duties, as he had knowingly signed the leases with false information regarding Person B’s signature.
The SDT found that Medlicott’s conduct amounted to dishonesty and was a breach of Principles 2, 4, and 5 of the SRA Principles, as well as Paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct. The tribunal determined that Medlicott’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor, especially considering his role as a partner in a law firm.
The tribunal highlighted that dishonesty, particularly in legal practice, often results in striking off, and that Medlicott’s actions were particularly serious because they involved the falsification of legal documents.
As a result of the seriousness of the misconduct, the SDT decided to strike Medlicott off the roll of solicitors. The tribunal also ordered Medlicott to pay £15,000 in costs, which was agreed upon and deemed appropriate in light of his financial situation and the case’s circumstances.
The SDT emphasized that striking off Medlicott was necessary to maintain the public’s confidence in the legal profession and uphold high ethical standards.