Emails: Deletions were deliberate
An associate who deleted an email chain as part of a “deliberate and dishonest attempt on her part to shape the narrative” following a client complaint has avoided being struck off.
Suspending Heather Roberts for 12 months instead, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said it was “prepared to accept” that her misconduct “had been a ‘moment of madness’” and she was “not a dishonest person”.
The Irwin Mitchell associate, who denied all the allegations against her, had been “moving into a zone of ill health”, a factor which “may not have been immediately apparent” to her.
“There had been no sophisticated attempt at cover-up and the fact of the deletions had been easily uncovered. The respondent did not gain from her actions nor did she cause loss to the client or the firm.
“She accepted from the start that she had deleted the emails although she denied doing so knowingly or having any recollection of doing so.”
Though dishonesty usually leads to a strike-off, the tribunal found that the misconduct “fell within the small residual category where striking off would be a disproportionate sanction”.
Ms Roberts, qualified in 2007, began work with Irwin Mitchell in July 2018 as an associate in the wills, trusts and estate disputes team.
Irwin Mitchell reported her the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in February 2022 and she left the firm that month “by mutual agreement”.
After Client A, who was involved in a will validity dispute, complained that particulars of claim (PoC) had been substantially amended without counsel’s approval, a partner at Irwin Mitchell asked Ms Roberts on 22 December 2021 for a full chronology detailing the history of the PoC.
The core allegation was that, on 29 December, Ms Roberts deleted five email chains between her and a colleague she was supervising from the case management system. These “revealed her involvement in relation to the PoC”.
The SRA alleged she wanted to hide her involvement in the handling of the amendments, to deflect blame away on to the colleague, and to cast herself in a better light.
“The email deletions were easily found in the recycle bin on the client file, not in a hidden or in an inaccessible location,” the SDT noted. “This indicated that it had not been a sophisticated attempt at thorough concealment.”
Ms Roberts did not dispute deleting the emails “but stated she could not recall doing so due to being in a ‘haze’ because of worsening health due to demanding working conditions at the firm”. She had been “approaching burnout”.
The solicitor said other matters had arisen on the colleague’s files “and this was ‘the last straw’”. She was signed off work with stress in January 2022.
Ms Roberts said she had trusted the colleague to send the amendments to counsel but “confirmed that she had not ensured” that this happened.
Finding the allegations proved, the SDT said her contention about being in a haze was undermined by the fact that one email not deleted was favourable to her – this was “indicative of a deliberate and dishonest attempt on her part to shape the narrative”.
However, “while it had found the respondent dishonest on this one occasion this did not mean that the respondent was a dishonest person”.
The SDT continued: “The character evidence pointed completely to the reverse and in all other respects she was a highly regarded solicitor. It was hoped that the respondent would be able to pick up her career once the period of suspension ended.”
The SDT “urged people in similar circumstances to ensure that they sought appropriate help before matters spiralled out of their control”.
Ms Roberts was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay just under £25,000 in costs.
Leave a Comment