SDT: Solicitor did not engage with proceedings
A solicitor who misled her divorce client, the Family Court and the owner of her law firm has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Kathryn Poole’s failure to file details of her client’s pension with the court resulted in Client A receiving a penal notice.
Ms Poole’s “failure to be candid as to the true position with regard to the missing pension information was exacerbated by her misrepresenting that the fault for the delay and her failure to provide the information to the court lay elsewhere”.
The imposition of a penal notice on Client A “and the prospect of her imprisonment, allied to an adverse costs order” caused “significant harm” to the client, who “explained that her trust in the legal profession had been broken” by her solicitor’s actions.
Ms Poole’s law firm was also exposed to a potential negligence claim and “court resources were wasted”.
The tribunal heard that Ms Poole, admitted in 2007, worked as a consultant at Vingoe Family Law in Truro from January 2021 until her consultancy agreement was terminated by the firm that August. She had brought the work for ‘Client A’ from another firm.
In March 2021, Client A and Ms Poole were put on notice that the client had to file full details of her property and income on the standard Form E in May ahead of a court appointment in June. Ms Poole had the client sign authority forms so she could contact her pension provider.
At the hearing, which took place in the absence of the parties, the Family Court ordered that the time for Client A to serve the Form E should be extended two weeks to 26 June.
Ms Poole “did not provide Client A with full details as to what had occurred”, telling her instead that the hearing could not proceed as the pension provider had not given her the necessary information, nor tell her about the new deadline for the Form E.
When Mr Vingoe, the sole owner of the law firm, carried out a file review at the end of June, there was no evidence that the Form E had been filed, whether the court hearing had taken place, and, if so, what the outcome was.
Ms Poole attended the court by phone on 28 July, at which the court ordered Client A to file her Form E by 11 August and attached a penal notice. Client A was also ordered to pay her husband’s costs of £250.
She did not tell her client this, but Mr Vingoe did a few days later. Ms Poole emailed the Form E to the court 21 minutes before the deadline on 11 August but said the client’s pension details were still awaited.
However, Mr Vingoe met Client A the following day; she had obtained the information from the pension provider, which told her it had not received any request from Ms Poole. Her consultancy agreement was terminated later that day.
Ms Poole did not engage with the tribunal proceedings and was absent from the hearing. It found that she had acted dishonestly and with a lack of integrity in her dealings with Client A.
An allegation that Ms Poole had failed to uphold the constitutional principle of the rule of law and administration of justice was dismissed – while her conduct may have engaged the latter principle, the SDT said it “could not identify” how the rule of law was affected.
She was also found to have failed to act with integrity by not promptly informing her law firm about the penal notice and costs order.
The SDT said Ms Poole’s motivation in misleading her client and law firm was “concealing her failure to have taken the appropriate action”.
She was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £33,800.