Eversheds Sutherland: Employee was ‘hot headed’
A former Eversheds Sutherland employee who created invoices for a pro bono matter he brought to the firm has been banned from the profession.
Thomas Elliott has agreed to restrictions imposed under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which mean he cannot in future work for a law firm without permission from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
A notice published last week said in 2023 Mr Elliott, who worked at Eversheds as a project co-ordinator, introduced a client for whom the firm then acted on a pro bono basis.
The client was a player at a local sports club of which Mr Elliott was club secretary and the work concerned disciplinary proceedings instigated by the local sports association.
After the work was done, and despite the fact the work was pro bono, Mr Elliott created two invoices on the firm’s system in early August 2023.
The first sought payment of 50% of the £80,000 legal costs “associated with the defence” of the player. A second invoice two days later sought £96,000.
During an interview as part of an internal investigation, Mr Elliott initially denied creating the second invoice – saying he had asked the finance team for one – but later admitted in writing what he had done.
He resigned following disciplinary proceedings and admitted his misconduct to the SRA>
In mitigation, the SRA said he had shown remorse and fully co-operated with its investigation.
“Mr Elliott described his actions as ‘hot-headed’ and motivated by a strong reaction to what he saw as an injustice in the way a young footballer had been investigated and the impact this had on the footballer and his family.
“Mr Elliott’s actions have not been motivated by personal financial gain, and he told the firm that he wanted to help the firm to recover some costs. He gained nothing financially from this.
“Mr Elliott’s does not feel there is any meaningful defence against his actions but reiterated that his actions do not reflect his wider character or a dishonest motivation.”
The SRA said a section 43 order was appropriate as his conduct “makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because it demonstrates that he is capable to react impulsively and use information available to him without his employer’s knowledge to pursue his own agenda and mislead his employer when confronted in respect of his actions”.
A person willing to do this “is not suitable to work in legal practice”.
Mr Elliott also agreed to pay costs of £300.
