Ban for trainee who misled employer over reason for day off


NHS hospital

Hospital appointment: Trainee amended letter to mislead employer

A trainee solicitor who misled her employer over why she wanted a day off work, seemingly to hide the fact that she was in court over planning breaches, has been banned from the profession.

Stephanie Merrill has been made subject to an order under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007, disqualifying her from working for a law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Ms Merrill started working at Lanyon Bowdler in Shrewsbury in September 2020 as a medical legal assistant and began a training contract two years later.

According to a notice published by SRA, shortly after, she requested annual leave for 3 October 2022 so she could take a relative to a hospital appointment.

However, on 10 October, Lanyon Bowdler was notified that, at a court hearing on 3 October, Cheshire East Council was granted an injunction against Ms Merrill in respect of planning breaches on land she occupied.

The firm began an investigation. On 31 October, in a signed statement of truth, Ms Merrill said that, before she found out about the court hearing, she agreed to take her relative to the appointment and that it was the reason why she requested leave.

She said that it was only on 2 October that she decided she had to attend the court hearing and told her relative she could not take them to the appointment.

Ms Merrill repeated her account at a disciplinary hearing and provided a copy of a hospital letter with the details of the appointment.

The SRA said: “The firm were not satisfied with Ms Merrill’s explanation. On 4 November 2022, the firm dismissed her for gross misconduct. Its reasons included that she sought to mislead the firm about her reason for requesting annual leave.”

Lanyon Bowdler also reported Ms Merrill to the SRA and she then admitted that she misled the firm about the appointment, which actually was for 4 October; she had amended the version she had handed over.

The SRA said that, by providing “false and misleading information and documentation” to the firm, she had been dishonest, lacked integrity and damaged public trust. This meant it would be “undesirable” for her to work for a law firm in future.

She was also directed to pay costs of £600.




    Readers Comments

  • Seriously angry says:

    Is this seriously what the profession has come to? Screwing up a trainee’s solicitor by not being truthful about the reason for taking annual leave to which they were entitled? Does this really damage public trust? I am outraged.

  • Legallycurious says:

    There is more to this story I think. Most employers don’t ask the reason for leave and even if you are not honest they won’t look into it. The other point is why the trainee even lied just reveal that you are bring taken to Court.

    Very strange story

  • Norman says:

    The punishment is completely over the top. It’s none of their business why she wanted a day off. She should have rung in sick

  • Spqr says:

    Agree. Outrageous. Silly stupid error and a decade of hard graft wiped out. Unbelievable

  • JM says:

    I don’t see why people are so bent out of shape. On of the leading principles under the code is honesty and integrity. The points for me (if the article is accurate) 1. She had no need to lie, she chose to, 2. The form were notified of the truth and when challenged she continued to lie, including amending a document to cover up the first lie, 3. She later admitted having lied when her ability to carry on ended. Benefit of the doubt could be she was embarrassed about the hearing, however that’s no excuse for dishonesty and positive deceit. Lastly, you all seem to be overlooking the fact that as trainer, the firm is required to instill and uphold the code. Getting as far as a training contract means she was (or ought to have been) aware of the code, expected standards and risk of wilful non-compliance. Good riddance.

  • Andrew Evans says:

    This looks harsh in the extreme!

  • Weights&Measures says:

    She lied in a document that she had signed with a statement of truth and provided a forged document to support her case (she change the date in the supporting hospital letter from the 4 to the 3 Oct).

  • Susan Lansley says:

    Seems harsh but who wants a liar and a forger to be their solicitor.

  • Catherine Sherwin says:

    Thank goodness I no longer work in the profession.

  • Metab says:

    You’re 100% right JM. I’m just an uneducated member of the public but when have of a solicitor we rely and expect a certain level of honesty and professionalism. This person certainly does not have those traits judging on the evidence pr

  • Riothamus says:

    I, too, suspect we do not have the whole story here and I suspect the firm had another agenda because it seems highly spiteful for them to make a report to the SRA.
    If I had booked a day off to visit York, I would not expect to be reprimanded if I decided to visit the Lake District instead. And I would refuse to sign a statement of truth about where I was, telling Lanyon Bowdler to file my answer under mind your own goddamn business. Yes, this needs a reprimand but one which reflects that the court was not misled, clients were not misled, and it was not a work matter but a private one; a reprimand such as a letter or small fine but not to destroy a person’s career over this. So, in answer to “Seriously Angry” above, yes, this is what the profession has come to under the current leadership of the SRA who seem to think solicitors bring the profession into disrepute merely by breathing whereas it is the SRA making a laughing stock of the profession. Maybe if it was a case of an ABS and misappropriating £ 60 mill from client account the SRA would turn a blind eye !

  • Lindsay James Keith says:

    I’m afraid JM is correct. I also agree that the consequences are extremely hard. I also suspect there are other factors in play.

  • Geoffrey Pollard says:

    The old adage is that the cover up will get you into more trouble than the original error. I suspect it was the forging of the hospital letter that tipped this into a more serious issue.

  • Siobhain Mairie Egan says:

    We had one trainee told the line manager that she was WFH on a large cases..she was in holiday in Turkey with her Mother instead !!
    Couldn’t understand why we sacked her ..solicitors cannot tolerate dishonesty at all .

  • Shaban Afzal says:

    It’s non of the company’s business why she wants to take a day off. A day off is a day off. No need to explain to your manager what you’re going to do outside work. Simple as that.
    This is ridiculous, ruining someone’s career.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Managing risk: a guide for law firms

Traditional risk management approaches typically focused on responding to incidents after they have occurred. Best practice today demands a more forward-thinking approach.


Legal tech in 2025: Data, data and more data management

Even the staunchest sceptics are now recognising that generative AI is here to stay. But was 2024 the year that the AI ‘hype bubble’ burst?


Understanding mid-sized law firms’ priorities in 2025

Mid-tier practices are looking to grow both organically, or by a merger/takeover, and our survey revealed that 17% of firms are intending to pursue an acquisition strategy over the next 12 months.


Loading animation