Email: SDT made holistic assessment of solicitor’s action
A solicitor who dishonestly made a minor amendment to an email when he forwarded it to a client – causing no harm to them or anyone else – has been suspended for a year.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) accepted that it was a momentary lapse by Michael Peter Goodwin and that there were exceptional circumstances that meant it should not impose the usual sanction of striking-off when dishonesty is found.
Mr Goodwin, 40 and qualified in August 2021, was a residential conveyancing solicitor at Midlands firm Talbots Law.
On 17 July 2023, he emailed ‘Client A’ a completion statement using the wrong email address, which had been added incorrectly to the firm’s management system.
It bounced back and he emailed her again the following day, this time using the correct address, writing: “I understand you’ve not received the attached.” But he amended the forwarded email of 17 July to show the correct address.
In his self-report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Mr Goodwin said he did this in “a moment of panic… so that the client was not aware that the email had gone to the wrong place previously”.
Following a file review, the solicitor was placed on paid leave and two weeks later agreed to resign with immediate effect as part of a settlement agreement.
In a statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the SDT, the SRA noted that Mr Goodwin was going through “a period of considerable emotional strain” for personal reasons.
But, it went on, “while ordinary, decent people may have sympathy with [his] circumstances, his conduct would nevertheless be considered dishonest by the standards of such people”.
When the misconduct was brought to light, it added, Mr Goodwin “ascertained that the high-pressure environment of the sector was not conducive to his wellbeing and sought alternative employment in a different field”.
The SRA said the “only potential benefit” to Mr Goodwin of his action “appears to be that he might have avoided embarrassment and/or the consequences of what may potentially have been a data breach”.
But neither the client nor anyone else suffered any detriment and the transaction was not affected. “The only potential harm was that the firm would have been unable to report a data breach, though in the end the firm concluded that there had not been one.”
In agreeing with the proposed 12-month suspension, the SDT accepted that no damage was done, while redacted medical evidence showed Mr Goodwin had longstanding health problems that “may have contributed to impulsive decision-making when confronted with difficult circumstances”.
The ruling said: “After conducting a holistic assessment of the facts, the tribunal concluded that exceptional circumstances did exist in this case, given the nature and scope of the misconduct and the broader contextual factors surrounding the case.
“Nevertheless, the tribunal recognised the necessity to safeguard both the public and the reputation of the legal profession by curtailing the respondent’s right to practice, thereby mitigating the risk of future harm.
“However, it concluded that neither of these objectives justified striking him off the roll.”
It ordered him to pay costs of £12,500 as well.
The SDT rejected Mr Goodwin’s application for anonymity on medical grounds, although unusually this was decided by majority, with the lay member dissenting.
While the medical evidence “clearly indicated a likelihood of some prejudice or hardship” if the judgment was without anonymisation, the majority held it was not enough to “warrant departing from the fundamental principle of open justice”.