Solicitor sanctioned after lack of supervision meant trainee’s work did not count towards qualification


SRA: maximum penalty

SRA: maximum penalty

A solicitor whose lack of supervision contributed to a decision that a trainee’s two years of work did not count towards her qualification has been rebuked and fined £2,000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Louise Thomson, who was admitted in 2006, accepted the sanction under a regulatory settlement agreement (RSA), which means her case will not be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

It is the maximum penalty that the SRA can levy short of a referral to the tribunal.

In March 2011, Ms Thomson began working as an in-house legal consultant for an unnamed company which in July 2011 was authorised by the SRA to take trainees. She was authorised as a training supervisor and shortly afterwards a trainee named only as ‘Ms R’ started working at the company.

The RSA recorded that between around October 2011 and February 2013, Ms Thomson took maternity leave. She stopped supervising Ms R and nobody replaced her. Nonetheless, Ms R undertook legal work and held herself out as a trainee solicitor.

Additionally, Ms Thomson failed to renew her practising certificate (PC) during her maternity leave, causing the SRA to revoke her existing PC in August 2012. This meant she was ineligible to act as Ms R’s training supervisor, although she did eventually renew her PC in February 2013.

In December 2013, an SRA adjudicator decided that the entire period of Ms R’s employment as a trainee solicitor with the company did not qualify as adequate training, due in part to the fact that she had not been adequately supervised.

As part of the RSA, Ms Thomson admitted that she failed to perform her obligations as Ms R’s training principal, and failed to inform the SRA both of her 15-month absence from the office and consequent inability to supervise Ms R’s training, and that she was ineligible to act as a training principal while she did not have a PC.

Ms Thomson apologised for the breaches and in mitigation highlighted that she self-reported her absence after the maternity leave period and enquired about any necessary extension to Ms R’s training contract.

She further reported Ms R’s conduct to the SRA and fully co-operated with the SRA, including returning to the company to assist with an audit into the experience of Ms R which was used by the adjudicator to make the decision on whether the training was adequate.

The RSA continued: “The breaches, which have been admitted, were not intentional or wilful and the SRA accepts that she did not act dishonestly or without integrity

“Ms Thomson has provided medical evidence which the SRA accepts adversely affected her judgement and ability to comply with her regulatory obligations at the relevant times.”

Ms Thomson also agreed to pay £7,685 towards the SRA’s costs.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

10 October 2019

How much is your SEO budget?

If the answer is ‘what SEO budget?’, then we have a major problem. Building a website is like putting up a fancy electronic billboard in the middle of the desert. SEO is the action of driving people to look at it.

Read More

Loading animation