SDT: Client instructions do not justify dishonesty
A family law solicitor who asked a newly qualified legal executive to lie to a litigant in person (LiP), having already lied to him herself, has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Kirsten Tomlinson admitted the email she sent to the legal executive telling her to lie, and she signed off with a smiling face emoji, was “horrific”.
The legal executive did not send the requested email and instead reported the matter to a partner at Irwin Mitchell in Manchester.
The SDT said Ms Tomlinson, a senior associate, “admitted knowingly misleading the opposing party, who was unrepresented, on two occasions and attempting to involve a junior colleague.
“She claimed to be acting on her client’s instructions and out of frustration with prolonged proceedings. The tribunal found that neither explanation excused her conduct.
“Solicitors must act honestly and advise clients appropriately; client instructions do not justify dishonesty.”
In a statement of agreed facts and outcome, approved by the SDT, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said Ms Tomlinson, who qualified in 2010, was employed by Irwin Mitchell between January 2020 and September 2023.
Client A instructed Irwin Mitchell on a family matter in 2022. Ms Tomlinson was the fee-earner, but most of the day-to-day work was carried out by Charlotte Watson, a paralegal who qualified as a chartered legal executive in June 2023.
‘Client A’ and her former partner ‘Person B’, a LiP, had been trying to resolve their financial arrangements through a consent order.
There had been delays and there were further delays in getting information from Person B to complete a form D81 statement of information.
Client A sent Ms Watson an email at 7.06am on 22 September 2023 and forwarded to Ms Tomlinson as she was on leave, in which the client told Ms Watson to “say you are instructed to submit court proceedings. And he [Person B] will be hearing from them shortly”.
Client A had not replied to a question about whether she would issue personally but Ms Tomlison still emailed the LiP that afternoon to say that, one he sent the signed and completed D81, “we will withdraw [Client A’s] application from court. Until then it will remain in place”.
When Ms Watson returned to work on 26 September, Ms Tomlinson sent her an email saying: “Tell him client says we will withdraw our application to court as soon as we receive the signed docs from him (he doesn’t know we haven’t issued… we just led him to believe that we did).”
The email was signed off with an emoji smiling face.
Ms Watson decided to speak to a partner immediately as she felt uncomfortable about the email exchanges.
In an investigation meeting, Ms Tomlinson admitted dishonesty, but did not face disciplinary action was taken because she was leaving the firm on 29 September. However, Irwin Mitchell reported her to the SRA soon after.
Meanwhile, Client A and Person B “eventually agreed a financial settlement”.
Ms Tomlinson admitted acting dishonesty in relation to both emails and accepted that a strike off was the “appropriate sanction”.
The SRA said her misconduct “did not consist of a one-off moment of madness” and, as Person B was an unrepresented party, there was “a power imbalance” between him and Ms Tomlinson.
Instead of to correcting the misrepresentation in her first email, the solicitor “compounded the misconduct by telling her colleague to continue misleading Person B”.
Ms Tomlinson was struck off and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Leave a Comment