Law firm employee banned for lying to client about complaint


Complaint: Team manager failed to pass on client’s concerns

A law firm team manager who misled a client about the progress of his complaint rather than admit a mistake has been barred from working in the profession.

Non-lawyer Christopher Harris, who worked at Admiral Law in Cardiff for a decade, accepted an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which means he cannot work for a law firm in future without Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) approval.

An agreement with the SRA said Mr Harris had been a team manager in the new client unit when, in December 2023, he agreed to escalate a client’s concerns in line with the firm’s complaints process.

However, he did not do this and, after the client sought an update, he said the complaint had been forwarded to the compliance team when it had not been.

The SRA said the telephone attendance notes Mr Harris created “were deliberately inaccurate in that they did not reflect the true content of the call. The notes were misleading to hide his failure to progress the complaint”.

Mr Harris was dismissed in May 2024 following an internal investigation.

He admitted misleading the client and covering up his error in not forwarding the complaint to compliance, and that he had acted dishonestly.

The agreement said: “Mr Harris’s conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because it demonstrates he was willing to mislead a client and falsify attendance notes in order to mislead colleagues rather than admit a mistake.

“A person willing to do this is not suitable to work in legal practice. If such conduct were to be repeated in future, it would pose a risk to clients and public trust.”

Mr Harris also agreed to pay costs of £300.




Blog


Is your Google Ads budget funding your competitors’ AI visibility?

If your cost-per-click has crept up again this year, you’ve probably assumed the market simply got more expensive. That’s the wrong way to read what’s happening.


Containing the spread of unapproved AI

Nearly 60% of fee-earners admit to using unapproved tools (like free versions of ChatGPT). Yet 68% of firm leaders are confident there is zero risk of unapproved AI being used for client work.


When AI adoption goes wrong, costs add up fast

City AM recently reported that London is fighting to claim the title of ‘global capital of legal AI’. However, it’s crucial we remember that adoption alone does not create value.


Loading animation