A newly qualified solicitor has been suspended after altering a handover note to conceal a mistake
A newly qualified solicitor who deleted part of an internal handover note after failing to follow its instructions has been suspended from practice for two years, following findings of dishonesty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Jack Alexander Williams, who was admitted as a solicitor in September 2020, was practising at Buckinghamshire firm Blaser Mills LLP at the time of the misconduct. The tribunal heard that Williams amended an electronic copy of a handover document by deleting a paragraph that prompted capital gains tax mitigation, after he failed to act on it. The effect, and intention, was to mislead others into believing that no such prompt had been included in the original note.
Williams was also found to have sent a misleading email two days later, which failed to fully and accurately explain the circumstances that gave rise to a capital gains tax liability for the estate of a client. He admitted both allegations.
The handover note had been prepared by a colleague who was going on maternity leave. Williams later accepted in a meeting with the firm’s managing partner that amending the handover document and failing to address the capital gains tax issue were, in his words, “stupid things to have done”. Following an internal investigation, the firm issued him with a final written warning and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in November 2023.
In its judgment, the tribunal said Williams’ admissions were unequivocal, supported by the evidence and properly made.
The tribunal was told in mitigation that Williams was immediately remorseful and that both he and the firm believed he could learn from his mistakes. It was also significant, the tribunal heard, that the firm continued to support him throughout the disciplinary process. The colleague who prepared the handover note confirmed that she held no bad feelings towards Williams.
Embed from Getty Images
The tribunal found that there had been no actual harm caused by the misconduct. While potential consequences for the colleague could have arisen, the judgment noted that none did in fact materialise.
In considering sanction, the tribunal found that Williams’ motivation in amending the handover note was to cover up his failure to read it thoroughly and to avoid responsibility for not following up a reference to a deed of appropriation. His motivation in sending the misleading email was found to be a continuation of that attempt to conceal his mistake.
The tribunal placed significant weight on Williams’ inexperience, noting that he had only recently joined the firm and had inherited a heavy caseload. It described the dishonesty as brief, confined to a single matter, and unaccompanied by personal gain or actual harm. The tribunal also accepted evidence of immediate confession, remorse and genuine insight, supported by colleagues who continued to trust him.
Williams was suspended from practice for two years. This will be followed by a further two-year period of strict practising conditions, including a requirement that he may only practise as an employee with SRA-approved employment. He was also ordered to pay costs of £16,419.