SDT clears newly qualified solicitor in “chaotic” firm

---

Email: Tribunal not convinced by evidence

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has dismissed all allegations against a newly qualified solicitor working in “a chaotic operational and management structure” where she was “not adequately supported”.

Mumba Chakulya, who worked at Goody Burrett in Colchester, was cleared of two allegations that she acted dishonestly by providing false information to a client.

The SDT held that there was no case to answer in a further allegation, that she gave false information to another client and David Cammack, a consultant solicitor at the firm, which closed at the end of last year.

The SDT criticised two of the solicitors who gave evidence against Ms Chakulya. Alice Brotchie, managing partner and COLP of Goody Burrett, “was at times evasive and defensive in her answers” while Mr Cammack was an “unsatisfactory witness who adopted a flippant approach”.

Mr Cammack “was reluctant to make concessions when presented with obvious inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and his witness statements”.

In contrast, the tribunal found Ms Chakulya to be “a credible and consistent witness, allowing for the passage of time that had occurred since the events in question”.

Ms Chakulya, who qualified in October 2019, began working in the civil litigation department in January 2020.

“The tribunal considered the context in which the alleged conduct arose,” its decision said.

“[Ms Chakulya] was a newly qualified solicitor working in a less than desirable professional environment with a paucity of supervision.

“The firm was operating in a chaotic operational and management structure in which [she] was not adequately supported as she commenced in practice. There was clear confusion amongst her seniors as to the supervision responsibilities and arrangements which impacted on [her] work.”

Ms Chakulya took charge of Client A’s unpaid commercial debt matter in February 2020 but, after she left in June 2021, the firm said it could find no evidence on the file that she had – as she had told the client – issued proceedings and later sought default judgment and enforcement. The claim was issued after she left.

However, the tribunal said Ms Brotchie conceded that Ms Chakulya had informed her in July 2021 that she may have used her personal email address in dealing with the court – but the managing partner did not tell the Solicitors Regulation Authority this; she apologised for this “human error” when correcting her evidence.

By the time she did so, it was too late to check whether Ms Chakulya had in fact used her own email address in using the Money Claim Online system as its records only went back three years; she said she did so become the firm did not have an email address linked to the system.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Chakulya believed that “she had issued proceedings, and that the information provided to the client reflected her genuine belief at the time”.

As a result, allegations that she provided false information to Client A in her updates and also in an invoice were found not proven.

The other allegation concerned another debt recovery matter, this time for Client B. The solicitor took over the case in March 2020 and again, after she had left, the firm could find no evidence that proceedings had been issued, the court fee paid, the original draft bankruptcy petition amended as Mr Cammack had requested, and a court date set.

Mr Cammack, who said Ms Cahkulya had assured him of progress on the matter, issued the petition in September 2021.

The tribunal said Mr Cammack’s evidence was “fundamental” to the allegation and his explanation “regarding the provenance of the email evidence that he had presented in support of his assertions regarding the respondent’s understanding of Client B’s matter lacked any credibility”.

The tribunal dismissed the allegation on the grounds of no case to answer.

Neither side applied for costs.