
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.
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.