Letter: Solicitor’s tone was inappropriate
A solicitor who continued to act for both executors of an estate after a dispute arose between them has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Susan Mary Carpenter also sent a letter to one of them that was “derogatory and personal in tone”.
The SRA reached a regulatory settlement agreement with the solicitor, who works at Powell & Co in Sutton Coldfield, meaning that she will not be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
The agreement recounted that Ms Carpenter was instructed in May 2022 by executors ‘A’ and ‘B’ to act in the administration of their mother’s estate, which included a property that B and their family occupied.
“During the administration of the estate, a dispute arose about the property between executor A as a beneficiary of the estate and executor B as the occupant of the property. The executors’ respective interests then conflicted, and they were no longer aligned in their duties as executors to administer the estate.
“As a result of the dispute, Ms Carpenter’s duty to act in the best interests of the executors became conflicted. However, Ms Carpenter continued to act for executor A and executor B.”
In February 2025, Ms Carpenter sent a letter to B demanding they vacate the property.
“The content of that letter went beyond what would be considered appropriate professional communication as it was derogatory and personal in tone, inappropriate in a solicitor-client relationship and likely to cause, and did indeed cause, distress to the recipient.”
Ms Carpenter admitted that she acted where there was a conflict and failed to act in her clients’ best interests, in breach of SRA rules.
By sending the letter, meanwhile, she failed to act with independence, damaged public trust and again did not act in her client’s best interests.
In mitigation, Ms Carpenter said there was a low risk of repetition, she had a hitherto clean regulatory record, and had co-operated with the SRA investigation.
The SRA said a written rebuke was an appropriate sanction as she was an experienced solicitor – she qualified in 2003 – who had been “reckless as to her regulatory obligations”. The letter had “a significant impact on executor B”, it noted.
Further, she continued to act despite there being an “evident conflict”.
“Any less serious sanction/outcome would be inappropriate to protect the public and public interest,” the SRA said.