Solicitor accused of luring frail clients into leaving him thousands in tainted wills

Tribunal probes Jonathan Leslie horner over wills leaving him and his family huge gifts

A solicitor has faced damning accusations that he exploited vulnerable clients, including those with dementia, to secure legacies worth tens of thousands of pounds for himself, his children, and even the relative of a colleague. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard allegations against Jonathan Leslie Horner, formerly a partner at Sussex Law Limited, during hearings on 13–17 June and 30 July 2019. The case, brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), centred on claims that Horner repeatedly failed to ensure clients received proper independent advice when drafting wills that favoured him or people close to him, and that he pressed ahead even when mental capacity was in doubt.

Between 2011 and 2016, Horner prepared wills for at least nine clients that included gifts to him, his partner, his children, or the daughter of an employee at the firm. One client, anonymised as MA, left £100,000 to Horner, alongside £5,000 each to his children and £10,000 to a colleague’s daughter. Another, CF, increased a legacy from £2,000 to £17,000. In a further case, FF left him her entire estate. Others, including EK, JDC, JRLC, SS, FT and DP, made bequests ranging from £2,000 to £20,000. The SRA argued these sums were “significant” relative to the estates and created obvious conflicts of interest. Under professional rules, the moment such a gift was proposed, the solicitor should stop acting unless the client takes truly independent legal advice. Investigators said Horner either arranged advice through someone linked to him or allowed wills to be executed before any advice was obtained, thereby stripping the safeguard of its force.

The tribunal was especially troubled by MA, diagnosed with dementia in 2014 and bereaved of her sister (and co-attorney) in October 2016. Despite evidence from medical professionals and carers of cognitive decline, a will in November 2016 gifting large sums to Horner and his family proceeded. In the FF matter, capacity concerns had been raised in late 2010 by an experienced solicitor, IM, who said FF was not fit to give instructions. Yet months later, in January 2011, Horner involved SC—his former secretary—to attend and the resulting will left him FF’s entire estate. Regulators alleged he sidestepped safeguards designed to protect the elderly and vulnerable, manipulating the process to preserve financial benefits for himself.

Dishonesty was alleged in five instances—EK, FF, CF, SS and MA—on the basis that an experienced probate solicitor knew he must secure bona fide independent advice before acting on gifts to himself or his circle, but chose not to, thereby improving the chances he would pocket the legacies. “The number, nature and circumstances of the gifts give rise to the inference that Mr Horner, while acting in a position of trust, unduly influenced his clients to leave him gifts for his own financial benefit or that of family members,” said counsel for the SRA, Grace Hansen.

Horner, represented by Paul Parker, denied dishonesty and insisted he always acted in clients’ best interests. He said the gifts were voluntary expressions of gratitude; that independent advice was obtained in many cases; and that testamentary capacity existed when the wills were signed. He accepted isolated oversights—such as failing to advise one client to obtain independent advice at the time—but said these were errors, not evidence of deceit. His team attacked the credibility of key witnesses and argued that post-execution advice can still satisfy professional requirements where the client later confirms their wishes.

Whatever the tribunal decides, the case shines a harsh light on a perennial hazard: solicitors drafting wills that benefit themselves or those close to them. Even when sums appear modest, the optics are toxic, the potential for undue influence acute, and public confidence fragile. For the elderly clients at the heart of these files—some frail, some grieving, some living with dementia—the question that now hangs in the air is chilling: were their final wishes respected, or quietly steered for private gain?