Harry Cottam, struck off for client account misuse, loses bid for anonymity as High Court upholds public’s right to know
A former solicitor who described himself as a “social leper” has failed in a dramatic bid to conceal his identity during a High Court appeal against being struck off. Harry Francis Cottam, disbarred in October 2023 for improper client account transfers, pleaded for anonymity on medical grounds—but the court firmly rejected his request.
Mr Justice Macdonald ruled that the public interest outweighed Cottam’s privacy concerns, stating that when a regulated professional is removed from the roll, “the process must remain open and visible.”
Cottam, who now works as a legal adviser, originally faced two allegations before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). One charge of dishonestly moving client funds into the office account was upheld, while a second allegation regarding false invoices was dismissed. His SDT hearing was held in private due to medical concerns, but the High Court appeal was held in public.
In court, Cottam argued that revealing his identity would have devastating effects on his mental health, citing medical reports detailing the psychological toll of professional disgrace. “A struck-off solicitor is a social leper,” he told the judge.
Despite acknowledging the mental health risks, Mr Justice Macdonald sided with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Its barrister, Matthew Edwards, argued that Cottam continues to promote himself as a legal adviser and the public deserves to know about his past misconduct. “It is only right that those who choose to instruct Mr Cottam are aware he was, or is currently, a struck-off solicitor,” Edwards said.
Cottam, representing himself, launched a wide-ranging appeal against the SDT decision. He claimed the tribunal failed to assess his medical evidence properly and made “incorrect assertions of fact,” particularly regarding the client’s money transfers. He argued that the SDT focused too heavily on whether the payments could have been authorised without his knowledge, rather than on his intentions or motives.
Embed from Getty ImagesIn a lengthy personal statement, Cottam said a female employee had made the transfers without malicious intent. “She had not stolen the money,” he said. “It was my own lack of attention that created the problem.”
He admitted he should have reported the matter to the SRA, but instead tried to manage it internally. “I took overall responsibility,” he said, “whether or not I knew at the time what had happened.”
The SRA rejected these arguments. Edwards said the tribunal had fully considered the medical evidence and stressed that just because something was not detailed in the judgment, “it does not mean it was not considered.” He noted the tribunal’s reliance on evidence from a financial investigation officer, which had not been challenged by cross-examination.
“The decision should not be interfered with by this court,” Edwards concluded, calling the SDT’s ruling “procedurally sound and thoroughly reasoned.”
Mr Justice Macdonald agreed, confirming that there had been no error in the SDT’s process and that Cottam’s appeal failed to meet the threshold for overturning a professional misconduct decision.
The case highlights the legal profession’s struggle to balance mental health sensitivities with the imperative of transparency. In the end, the court decided that shielding a disbarred solicitor from scrutiny would undermine trust in the regulatory system.