SDT: Solicitor’s approach was inappropriate
A solicitor who misled a client over a psychiatric report to “avoid exacerbating” their mental health problems has been fined £15,000.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that although Nicholas Nikola Stojanovic had failed to act in the best interests of his client, he had not acted dishonestly or with a lack of integrity.
Mr Stojanovic told Client X in March 2024 that he was waiting for the client’s psychiatric report, despite receiving it the previous month.
A week later he told Client X there had been “no change at this end”, implying he had not received the report. The following month the solicitor restated that he was still waiting for it.
The SDT said Mr Stojanovic’s decisions regarding disclosure of the report were “motivated by a desire to avoid exacerbating Client X’s vulnerability and mental health difficulties and the potential effect upon him of receiving the report without appropriate advice and preparation”.
Knowingly giving the client misleading information “had to be viewed and considered in this wider context”.
The tribunal heard that Mr Stojanovic, who qualified in 2003, began work as a senior associate at Yorkshire firm Ramsdens in January 2022.
He took over the conduct of the complex clinical negligence case the same month, who arose from a failed operation which led to serious physical complications for Client X and also affected his mental health.
Mr Stojanovic said he found Client X “challenging to represent because his mood could be unpredictable and communications were sometimes difficult”.
Client X was prone to “anxiety, paranoia, and anger”, on one occasion upsetting Mr Stojanovic’s assistant after which it was agreed that the client would not speak to her.
After a conference with counsel in January 2023, Mr Stojanovic instructed several medical experts to provide reports in support of Client X’s case, including a psychiatric report.
The solicitor received the report in February 2024, but did not send it to Client X for three months. After Client X contacted Ramsdens about the report, the firm investigated the matter and reported it to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Stojanovic admitted the factual basis of the allegations and that he had made a serious error of judgement, but said “his actions were not motivated by any intention to cheat, exploit or prejudice Client X, or to enrich himself”.
He had considered it “inappropriate” to provide the report to Client X without first having an opportunity to consider it and formulate appropriate advice.
He argued that his alleged breaches of the SRA principles were not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.
The tribunal found that Mr Stojanovic’s misleading communications “were the product of a fundamentally misguided and ill-judged approach to the management and timing of the disclosure” of the report, rather than “a departure from the ethical standards expected of the profession”.
However, his approach was “inappropriate” and “he ought to have managed the risks presented by Client X’s vulnerabilities without sending misleading communications”.
The solicitor should have raised his concerns internally “and sought appropriate supervision and support in relation to the management of Client X’s vulnerabilities”.
He should also have “considered what measures could be put in place to address the risks he had identified, including agreeing an appropriate timetable with Client X for disclosure of the material report and putting in place any necessary advice or support to enable it to be disclosed in a way which addressed those concerns and, crucially, ensuring that the file contained a clear contemporaneous record of the steps he had taken, the concerns he had identified and the reasons for his approach”.
He was found to have failed to act in the client’s best interests, but not dishonestly or with a lack of integrity or in a way that failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession, as had been alleged.
Mr Stojanovic was fined £15,000. Although “the more serious allegations were not ultimately proved”, the tribunal decided to make no reduction from the costs claimed by the SRA of £14,400.
Leave a Comment