Asylum application: Eventually approved
A solicitor who lied to his law firm, the Home Office and an MP after failing to make submissions in an asylum claim has been struck off.
The tribunal said James Martin Taylor maintained the “deceit” that he had sent the documents to the Home Office for over a year and “continued to deny the truth” when under investigation by his law firm.
In a statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome approved by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said his misconduct was “likely to have continued were it not for the complaint” made by Client A to his firm.
The SRA also said Mr Taylor “did not tell the truth to the COLP when she was investigating the complaint against the firm until he was faced with IT evidence contradicting his account”.
He told the SRA that “once I had confirmed the lie, I couldn’t see a way back and so maintained the dishonesty position”.
Mr Taylor, 43 and qualified in 2009, was one of two partners at Gateshead-based multi-office firm Collingwood Immigration Services.
Client A was a foreign national who came to the UK with their family to seek asylum. After the Home Office rejected their claim, they instructed Mr Taylor in January 2020. Six month later, he purportedly emailed the Home Office with further submissions in support of a fresh claim.
In 2021, Client A sought help from their local MP, whose caseworker got in touch with the solicitor and was told about the submissions.
In December 2021, Mr Taylor emailed the Home Office, including the submissions he said he had made in July 2020.
In February 2022, the Home Office refused Client A’s request for permission to work on the basis that their asylum submissions had not been outstanding for more than 12 months.
Mr Taylor then sent a letter before action, in response to which the Home Office said it had only received the submissions in December 2021.
In May 2022, the Home Office granted Client A and his family asylum.
That Mr Taylor had not emailed the submissions in July 2020 only came to light after Client A complained to the firm. Though he argued there was no merit in the complaints, the firm examined the metadata, which showed he had created a document in July 2020, but it was not sent until December 2021.
The firm’s COLP informed the SRA and Mr Taylor self-reported three days later.
In this, he said: “As the matter progressed, it became apparent that whilst I had contacted the Home Office, and gone on record, I had not actually lodged the further submissions.
“Rather than admit this to the client and explain the situation, as I should have done, I continue [sic] to maintain that the application was submitted.”
Mr Taylor went on: “I realise that if I had simply accepted that it had not been submitted, at the time, my honest mistake would not have deteriorated into dishonesty.
“I appreciate that when I became aware there was a problem, I should have informed the client, but I initially thought that by lodging further submissions that the issue would resolve itself.”
The SRA said the solicitor’s motive in misleading people was to “conceal his own mistakes”.
In terms of harm caused, Client A “could have faced removal from the UK because his asylum claim had been refused, and he had no claim pending” until the Home Office actually received the further submissions.
“The impact upon the firm was that it was required to financially compensate the client in relation to the complaint.”
There was also an impact on the Home Office, because it was required to expend resources to respond to the letter before action which Mr Taylor advised Client A to make, despite it “being based on a material untrue statement”.
Agreeing he should be struck off, the SDT said: “The tribunal found that the respondent’s actions constituted serious misconduct which was aggravated by being sustained over a period of time.
“It concluded that striking him off the roll was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and protect the public.”
Mr Taylor was also ordered to pay costs of £6,000.