Solicitor who felt “intimidated” by clients struck off

Hip replacement claim: Proceedings not served

A partner who said she felt “threatened and intimidated” by clients who would not accept her advice to discontinue has been struck off for lying about the progress of their cases.

Bethany Sarah Reay claimed she also suffered from mental health problems at the time, but did not seek to argue that this was a reason not to strike her off.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said it was “a serious case of numerous incidents of dishonest conduct spanning a significant period of time”.

Ms Reay admitted that she had acted dishonesty between 2013 and 2017 in what she said to four clients, and also to an opponent.

Ms Reay was born in 1981 and qualified in 2007. She worked at Manchester firm JMW from 2012, moving up from assistant to associate and, in 2015, non-member partner. She left in August 2017.

In an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Ms Reay admitted making one personal injury client believe that their claim over a failure to diagnose Type 1 diabetes was being progressed, when in fact it had either not been served or had lapsed for want of service.

In the second case, a claim over a hip replacement, Ms Reay again did not serve proceedings and also misled both her client and the NHS Litigation Authority (as was) that expert witnesses had been instructed, when in fact they had not been.

In another clinical negligence case, Ms Reay failed to issue proceedings but told the client and their litigation friend that the case was progressing.

In the final matter, a claim against a consultant, Ms Reay discontinued the matter without instructions and again misled the client into thinking it was still going on.

In mitigation – which was expressly neither adopted nor “necessarily accepted” by the SRA – Ms Reay said she was suffering from an anxiety disorder at the time and that JMW was aware that she was being treated for mental health problems.

She claimed she was unable to cope with her workload and was offered little support by the firm – the firm was not a party to the agreement or hearing.

The mitigation continued: “She failed to persuade clients, on matters where their claims were not meritorious, to accept their position and then did not handle the situation in an acceptable way.

“She did not respond appropriately when she felt intimidated and threatened by clients who were not prepared to accept that their claims could not proceed.”

Ms Reay said she was no longer practicing and did not intend to work as a solicitor again.

But she did not contend that this mitigation amounted to exceptional circumstances which would justify any decision other than striking her off.

She also agreed to pay costs of £3,800.

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.


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.


3 April 2020

In challenging times, should you move to the cloud?

Having a cloud-based system can provide workers with incredible flexibility. However, there are many things that a firm should be aware of before making the transition to the cloud.

Read More

Loading animation