SRA: Decision published more than three years later
The fee-earner at the heart of the Mazur ruling is a ‘senior litigation executive’ who was suspended indefinitely as a solicitor 17 years ago, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has revealed.
The ruling, which concerned Peter Middleton’s status as a non-authorised person conducting litigation at Bradford firm Goldsmith Bowers, has caused huge uncertainty among litigators.
The SRA yesterday published a decision from May 2022 [1] in which it varied its approval of Mr Middleton’s employment by the firm to a senior litigation executive.
The firm’s website says he has worked there for over a decade. According to Mr Justice Sheldon’s ruling in Mazur, Mr Middleton was referred to as its head of litigation.
The approval was made subject to multiple conditions, including that Mr Middleton’s work was directly supervised at all times by Robert Ashall, a director of the firm, and that Mr Ashall “is to conduct (and document) meetings with Mr Middleton at regular intervals to review his progress and his work generally”.
In his witness statement to the High Court, Mr Ashall said the work Mr Middleton had done was “under my supervision”.
He added: “In submitting the claim to Money Claim Online and thereby issuing proceedings Peter was supporting me in the conduct of litigation.
“As a firm specialising in commercial debt recovery, GBS employs a number of non-authorised fee earners, all of whom issue proceedings in support of myself and the other Authorised Persons within the business. This is the norm in commercial debt recovery.”
The regulator said Mr Middleton could be named on Goldsmith Bowers’ headed notepaper, website and publicity material “provided his status is made clear”.
An internet search indicates that the firm only started explicitly referring to Mr Middleton not being a solicitor on its website towards the end of last year, when the challenge in the Mazur case arose.
First, his biography ended: “To be clear, nothing here implies that Peter Middleton is legally qualified to act as a Solicitor.” This year, it changed to putting ‘non-Solicitor’ next to his name on the ‘About us’ page.
The SRA also banned him from having any responsibility for client monies, being an authorised signatory to any client or office account cheque, or having the power to authorise electronic payments on transfers from any client or office account.
The reasons for the conditions, the SRA explained, were: “John Robert Peter Middleton was suspended from practice as a solicitor for an indefinite period on 31 July 2008.
“In accordance with section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practise as a solicitor must obtain the SRA’s approval.
“The SRA is satisfied that the above employment will not put public confidence in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services or the interests of clients at risk.”
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruling from 2008 recorded that, at the time, Mr Middleton was practising as a sole practitioner, having qualified in 1997.
It found that he had continued to act for clients for more than three months in 2007 without a practising certificate ahead of closing down his firm.
Separately, he had sent a misleading email to the other side in litigation, telling them he had passed on court orders to his clients when he had not, had failed to pay compensation to a client ordered by the Legal Complaints Service (a forerunner of the Legal Ombudsman), and had breached the accounts rules, including by not submitting accountant’s reports.
Mr Middleton did not engage with the tribunal proceedings.