SDT: Solicitor knew what she was doing
A solicitor who falsely recorded 100 hours of time to help meet her billing targets has been struck off, despite recognition of the mental health issues she was facing at the time.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Clare Elizabeth Forster’s was “a sad case” and it expressed sympathy for her “personal circumstances and the human pressures that had contributed to her conduct”.
But it emphasised that solicitors “bore a professional responsibility to seek assistance before actions spiralled into serious misconduct”.
The SDT said: “Whilst her initial conduct may have arisen spontaneously as a reaction to an apprehension that she would be dismissed, this was overtaken by a more deliberate and sustained course of conduct.
“Over a period of approximately five months, her behaviour crystallised into a planned approach involving repeated acts of falsifying timesheets across multiple client files, accompanied by an element of concealment through an untrue explanation that an IT failure had caused the loss of the relevant file note.”
Ms Forster, who qualified in June 2019, join Hull firm Hudgells as a clinical negligence solicitor in March 2022. Her billing target was 125 hours a month, or 1,500 hours a year.
The SDT was told that there were concerns about her time recording from the start; she achieved only 70% of her target between November 2022 and April 2023.
It was also noted by a manager that she was working late into the evening, which she said in order to meet her targets.
But she passed her probationary period and received guidance on improving her time-recording practices. In February 2023, Hudgells stopped allocating her new cases so she could focus on her existing caseload, and in June 2023 her target was temporarily reduced to 100 hours.
Ms Forster was placed on a performance improvement plan in August 2023 but after a period of sick leave in the autumn, her time recording deteriorated further.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority accused her of falsely recording time on four matters between 8 June and 27 November 2023, when she admitted what she had done.
An internal investigation identified 100 hours of recorded time that could not be substantiated, along with a pattern of late-night-time recording.
When questioned about blank documents on the firm’s system that she had recorded time for completing, “she admitted that she had recorded time for work she had intended to complete later, attributing her conduct to the pressure of meeting time-recording targets”.
Ms Forster’s solicitor-advocate, David Taylor of South London firm Hanne & Co, argued that the case fell into the narrow category of dishonesty cases where striking off would be a disproportionate sanction.
She had faced “significant personal challenges” which had had “a profound and lasting impact upon her mental health, which had materially affected her ability to concentrate and to function effectively in the workplace”.
Mr Taylor said the demands put on her, and the escalating pressures of the improvement plan, “had created an overwhelming situation”. Her time-recording patterns “ought to have been a red flag to her employer that she was struggling”.
In deciding sanction, the SDT said it was “a matter of luck” that no client suffered actual financial or procedural loss.
“The tribunal also accepted that there was substantial mitigation in the form of a deterioration in her mental health, difficult personal circumstances arising from a prolonged abusive relationship, and significant workplace pressure.”
It also accepted that Ms Forster “had acted against her normal character” and had shown insight and remorse.
But while there was “no doubt” that her state of mental health had fluctuated, “it had not done so to the extent that her capacity for rational decision-making had been degraded throughout the relevant period and not to the extent where she had not appreciated the difference between honest or dishonest conduct”, the SDT concluded.
“There may have been isolated instances of clouded judgment, but these did not rise to a level that would have impaired her ability to distinguish right from wrong.
“Further, this was not a case of a momentary lapse in which corrective action had been taken quickly. The misconduct was sustained over five months, involved multiple client matters, and included deliberate concealment.
“Whilst the mitigation was genuine and substantial, it was not sufficient to bring the case within the very small residual category in which striking off would be disproportionate.”
Ms Forster was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £25,000.