Irwin Mitchell lawyer struck off after telling newly qualified colleague to lie

Avatar photo

By Julia Szaniszlo on

22

Admitted dishonesty

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Credit: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

A former Irwin Mitchell lawyer has been struck off the roll after telling a newly qualified legal executive to lie to the other side.

Kirsten Tomlinson qualified in 2010 and had worked as a senior associate at Irwin Mitchell since 2020. In 2022, the firm was instructed in a family law matter for which she was the named fee-earner. The day-to-day conduct of the case, however, was handled by a paralegal who qualified as a chartered legal executive in June 2023.

The client was seeking to resolve financial arrangements with her former partner by way of a consent order. The former partner was unrepresented and corresponded directly with the firm.

According to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), Tomlinson was dishonest on two occasions: first, when she emailed the client’s ex-partner stating that an application to court had already been issued, when it had not; and secondly when she told the legal exec to continue misleading the ex-partner about the existence of court proceedings.

The 2026 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The email to Watson included the line: “[H]e doesn’t know we haven’t issued… we just led him to believe that we did” and was signed off with a smiling face emoji.

The legal exec did not send the email but instead reported the incident to a partner at Irwin Mitchell’s Manchester office. In her witness statement, she said she was surprised by the email and felt uncomfortable about the exchange.

The tribunal found that Tomlinson had knowingly misled an unrepresented party and attempted to involve a junior colleague in her misconduct. Particular attention was paid to the fact that the client’s former partner was acting as a litigant in person, which created a significant power imbalance.

Tomlinson admitted both allegations of dishonesty. However, the tribunal rejected her explanation that she was acting on client instructions or out of frustration with delays in the case, finding that neither justified dishonesty.

It concluded that the misconduct was deliberate and repeated, and that striking off was the only appropriate sanction.

Tomlinson was struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.

22 Comments

Liar liar pants on fire

The junior misplaced or deleted that. The assistant made a mistake on this. The paralegal forgot that. Just do what I say because I am your boss. I have heard it many times.

I am sad to read this article because this is another example, only this time, they got caught. The worst part is we all know what the consequences are and how expensive it is to qualify. So why risk your own career, and worse, attempt to drag others down with you?

Roy

I ave worked as a paralegal for a few firms of Solicitor. They all have one thing in common. That is, getting the highest fee they can from the Client, sometimes that means misleading the client to assume things which are not true.

David

That is literally not what is happening here. Read the article in full and take your gossip elsewhere.

SDT

Struck off? Seems a bit harsh.

David

NO it is NOT in fact she or any other person in such a position should lose all right to advise anyone else in any legal position ever ! .
This is one of the professions that should be beyond reproach .

Bob.

Only Struck off, as a self rep in family court you often get fined for being late with submitting. They should be prosecuted for lying and sent down.

James

Are you for real

AI to replace all lawyers

One more reason for clients to use AI instead of instructing solicitors – both humans lawyers and AI can make mistakes but AI won’t do it in bad faith.

Anna

Hello, failed lawyer.

Chan

Hello insecure lawyer hahahaha

AI to replace all lawyers, especially Anna

Oh Anna, if you can be a “successful lawyer” with the calibre and advocacy skills (i.e., the lack thereof) that you just displayed in your comment, then you are actually supporting my view that AI should replace lawyers, assuming you are even literate enough to understand the English words I just typed. I thought words in your native language were all you knew but wow the legal industry is way lower than I thought.

Yikes

Weirdly defensive comment. Ouch.

The Lesser of Two Evils

“AI won’t [make mistakes] in bad faith”

I beg to differ. One of the most fascinating things about AI is that it can lie. An ordinary machine makes mistakes, but AI lies.

You can give an AI very clear instructions to check a website or statistics, or to only use particular sources in its answer- it will generate you a very plausible answer, but then if you ask whether it followed your instructions it may say that it was actually unable to follow your instructions and just didn’t tell you.

I have had this many times using AI casually. You do not want AI anywhere near the legal system as much as you may think you do.

Wendy

You are right AI is not always correct. My son asked what a baby animal was called. ( I can’t remember which animal ) The answer seemed odd. So he asked if it was sure, then got a different answer. It was not a complicated question.
If something this simple can generate 2 different answers, no way should you trust it for legal answers.

Sergio

Some solicitors, along with a few other legal professionals, somewhere along their academic and professional training, tend to misplace their honesty, integrity and common-sense in a law library and never returned to find them!

michael

no way: ethical

Freddo

Signing out the deceit with an emoji. Class.

Doris Ray

So basically a Female solicitor deliberately tried to screw over her clients husband/ partner, score one for the Dads

Tim

Solicitor, lying? This really isn’t news.

Alex

I don’t havean opinion on the decision barr the Senior associate but I’m read many cases of partners (with expensive representation!!) not being struck off for sexual harassment. Why does the SRA take a lighter view on these serious matters? You only have to read their case logs to see that they have issued penalties and warnings but not stuck senior people off. The injustice is infuriating.

Liane

I totally agree my AI lawyer has been a godsend. She deserves to be struck off, lying to a client who is a LIP is disgraceful. I am at an employment tribunal at the moment and I have never had such a terrible experience. Exparte meetings, both solicitor and barrister blatantly lying about me. They are a disgrace to the profession and should never work in that field again, I just hope my complaints yield the same result. Yes AI can make mistakes but so do humans, I’d rather be lied to by a robot than some of the idiots who profess to being legal representatives, all the while suppressing exculpatory evidence and having their witnesses lie under oath. Yes a very honourable profession.

Shorting IM

Couldn’t even get through January without another IM solicitors getting struck off.

Join the conversation