Strike-off for solicitor who deleted and lied about email


Email: Log showed solicitor had deleted message

A solicitor at a national law firm who deleted a client’s email from its document management system (DMS) “to try to cover up that he had not dealt with it” has been struck off.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Christopher James Hawkes, who worked for Clarke Wilmott, later denied both to his supervising partner and to the client that he had received the email.

The SDT said Mr Hawkes, who admitted acting dishonestly, had “deliberately misled both his client and his supervising partner”.

In a statement of agreed facts and outcome with Mr Hawkes, approved by the SDT, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said the solicitor was working in the private client and commercial litigation team at Clarke Wilmott’s Southampton office when he took over conduct of a debt case in September 2021.

Client A had instructed the firm to serve a statutory demand on one of its debtors.

Mr Hawkes, born in 1972 and qualified in 2021, wrote to the client in January 2022, attaching the draft demand and saying that, subject to the client’s approval, it should be personally served.

At the end of March 2022, Mr Hawkes was instructed him to serve the demand and confirm when it had been done. The solicitor replied the following month, saying it had been served by post.

Client A emailed on 26 May 2022, saying: “Hi Chris, can you also confirm that this was hand delivered also? If not, please can you ensure it is?”.

Mr Hawkes filed the email on the DMS that same day but never replied to it. He received a further email from Client A, sent both to him and his supervising partner, Owen Williams, asking for an update on the case on 14 September.

Mr Williams forwarded the email to him with a question mark. Mr Hawkes did not reply and instead, later that day, deleted Client A’s email from the DMS.

The following day, in response to another email from Mr Williams, Mr Hawkes said he did not recall receiving the May email and, at his supervisor’s request, told the client that there was no trace of the email on the firm’s system.

Mr Williams, with the help of Clarke’s Wilmott’s IT department, discovered both the email and an activity log showing Mr Hawkes had deleted it.

A week later, at a disciplinary hearing, Mr Hawkes accepted that he had removed the email “to try to cover up that he had not dealt with it”, and the firm dismissed him for gross misconduct. Clarke Wilmott notified the SRA.

In non-agreed mitigation, the solicitor said he was suffering “from a depressive disorder of moderate severity at the material time, which may have impacted on his decision making”.

He was “employed in a very junior role and was working at home, in an isolated working environment” and felt “out of his depth and unable to ask for support from his supervisors”.

The consequences of the deletion “have had a grave and irreversible impact on his professional career and he has also suffered from health problems following the incident”.

Mr Hawkes was struck off and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.




    Readers Comments

  • Andrew Purdie says:

    The moral of the story is when you mess up ( and we all do at some time ) admit it .
    It’s the trying to hide it that gets you in the end
    Was striking off really a proportionate remedy ?

  • Scovya Porsha says:

    I think this was too harsh. Poor man. All that work studying down the drain. Couldn’t he have received a final warning or something? Bless him

  • Scovya Porsha says:

    Striking off was a little too harsh. On the other hand at his age he should have known better. Lies at a job especially a Profession that you’ve worked so hard for isn’t worth it at all. Best wishes to him


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.

Blog


Change in regulator shouldn’t make AML less of a priority

While SRA fines for AML have been climbing, many in the profession aren’t confident they will get any relief from the FCA, a body used to dealing with a highly regulated industry.


There are 17 million wills waiting to be written

The main reason cited by people who do not have a will was a lack of awareness as to how to arrange one. As a professional community, we seem to be failing to get our message across.


The case for a single legal services regulator: why the current system is failing

From catastrophic firm collapses to endemic compliance failures, the evidence is mounting that the current multi-regulator model is fundamentally broken.


Loading animation