SRA Dishonesty & Investigations by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
How A Long Hours Culture Can Lead To Solicitor Dishonesty
In April 2024, an inquest found that city lawyer and mum of two, Vanessa Ford, died of multiple injuries after falling onto a railway track and being struck by a train. The Coroner found Ms Ford had consumed “a significant amount of alcohol while undergoing an acute mental health crisis”. Ms Ford had been working 18 hour days advising on the ‘all-consuming’ sale of Everton Football Club in the months prior to her death. This tragic case, along with recent media reports highlight the punishing working hours put in by Solicitors working in top UK and American law firms. With starting salaries of £170,000 in some firms, 13-hour days are not uncommon, and weekend work is often expected. But long working days are not only the preserve of City-based firms. On average, Solicitors put in 40-50 hour workweeks. And in our digital world of instant answers, legal professionals are under intense pressure to get clients the results they want swiftly and cost-effectively while still meeting billing targets.
This situation can lead to mistakes being made, and sometimes, Solicitors acting dishonestly to cover up errors – an explosive cocktail that can result in a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation and prosecution.
Why is there a long hours culture in law firms?
The legal profession is highly challenging, in terms of demands from senior staff, clients, and pressures to meet monthly billing targets. Most law firms have slashed their support staff over the years, resulting in Solicitors having to work longer hours to keep up with their workload. Also, clients, especially those in business, are typically more educated and demand more value for money. This makes it harder to reach targets. The situation is most acute in M&A departments, where at times unrealistic deadlines are agreed by senior partners, leading to those below them having to work excessive hours to meet the client’s expectations.
How long working hours lead to mistakes
Sleep deprivation, stress, and pressure from clients and partners create the perfect environment for Solicitors, especially those starting their careers, to make mistakes. Stimulants such as drugs and alcohol, which are often used to alleviate tiredness, only makes the situation more explosive.
How mistakes can lead to dishonesty
Everyone makes mistakes at work. What can lead to an SRA investigation is when circumstances suggest that someone has tried to cover up their mistake in a dishonest way.
Principle 4 of the SRA Principles states that those regulated by the SRA must act with honesty. This principle was added in the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations, with the Regulator reasoning:
“We believe that honesty is one of the most fundamental tenets of the solicitor’s profession, and should be reflected in the new Principle 4. We are comfortable that the terms ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ may overlap, but that action can be taken if someone fails to demonstrate one or another.”
What happens if the SRA investigates a Solicitor for dishonesty?
The SRA’s investigatory and disciplinary powers and duties are derived from the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Legal Services Act 2007. The investigation process will involve looking at your client files and perhaps interviewing you to try and understand what happened.
If the SRA is investigating you, it is crucial to instruct an experienced Regulatory Law Barrister to advise and represent you. If the SRA decides to prosecute you, you will invariably be struck off the Roll.
Is mental health a defence in Solicitor dishonesty cases?
In Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, Sir Thomas Bingham MR made the following comments regarding dishonesty:
“Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may, of course, take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. In such cases the tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. Only infrequently, particularly in recent years, has it been willing to order the restoration to the Roll of a solicitor against whom serious dishonesty had been established, even after a passage of years, and even where the solicitor had made every effort to re-establish himself and redeem his reputation…”
In Solicitors Regulation Authority v James & Ors, the High Court looked at the cases of three Solicitors who had been dishonest. It was asked to rule on whether the pressures they endured at work and the subsequent impact on their mental health meant a lesser penalty than striking off could be justified. Lord Justice Flaux ruled that workplace stress and/or extreme working conditions cannot “justify dishonesty in a solicitor”. This was despite the fact that the work conditions endured by Ms James were acknowledged to be “frankly abominable”.
He went on to say:
“…whilst in no sense belittling the stress and depression from which the respondents suffered, it was in no sense exceptional. It is sadly only too common for professionals to suffer such conditions because of pressure of work or the workplace or other, personal, circumstances”.
Despite these decisions, in the last two years the SRA, in limited cases, has agreed to suspend Solicitors found to have acted dishonestly rather than striking them from the Roll, after finding exceptional circumstances.
What are ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘moments of madness’?
In SRA v Stark [2022] 12418 and SRA v Arnison [2023] 12437, which both involved dishonesty, the SRA accepted that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ and in both instances, the Solicitors suffered a “moment of madness” which led to their dishonest actions This was illustrated by confidential medical evidence. Both Solicitors had, up until that point, unblemished careers. It was also a consideration that neither had received any personal benefit from their actions, and promptly reported the dishonesty to the Regulator.
In each case, the SDT concluded that striking off would be a disproportionate sanction and instead the Solicitors were suspended.
In October 2024, I successfully argued ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a Managing Partner who had instructed a junior colleague to send a dishonest email to a client he was acting for on a conveyancing matter. The allegations were accepted; however, in considering exceptional circumstances, the SDT said limited weight could be given to the Managing Partner’s claims of difficult working conditions, lack of support, and mental health troubles. “More persuasive” was the fact that the dishonesty between the Managing Partner and junior colleague lasted for a brief 90-minute period, was not premeditated, was not continued in that the dishonest email was not in fact sent to the Client, and did not prejudice the underlying transaction.
Wrapping up
Although law firms are becoming more aware of the disastrous toll excessive working hours can take on some employees, it may be a generation or two before things change in any meaningful way (it’s hard to imagine Generation Z or Alpha putting up with such intrusion into their personal lives).
In the meantime, if you have made a mistake at work, it is vital that you own up rather than try to cover up. The latter could mean the end of your career. And if the SRA is investigating you for dishonesty, contact an experienced Regulatory Defence Barrister immediately as you may be able to avoid being struck off by successfully arguing exceptional circumstances.
Get in Touch
Tanveer Qureshi specialises in general crime, white-collar crime and regulatory investigations and prosecutions. If you require legal representation, please contact Tanveer directly at tqureshi@4-5.co.uk or call directly on 0203 637 2190.