‘Moment of madness’
A junior solicitor has been suspended from practice for two years after deleting a paragraph from an internal handover document when he failed to follow the instructions it contained.
Jack Alexander Williams, who qualified in September 2020, was working in the wills and probate team at Blaser Mills when the misconduct occurred. He admitted dishonesty after amending an electronic handover note to remove a prompt about capital gains tax (CGT) mitigation and later sending a misleading email to his supervisor about how a CGT liability arose on a client estate.
The handover note, prepared by a colleague before she went on maternity leave, specifically flagged the need to stay in contact with those handling the sale of a property so that CGT mitigation steps could be taken. Williams took over the file but failed to act on that instruction.
When it later emerged that the property had not been appropriated before sale — resulting in a “modest” CGT liability — Williams deleted the relevant paragraph from the electronic version of the handover note, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found.
Two days later, Williams emailed his supervisor with an explanation that the SDT found was “misleading”, as it did not fully or accurately set out how the CGT issue had arisen and wrongly suggested responsibility lay elsewhere.
The tribunal heard that Williams “panicked” after realising his mistake. When the discrepancy between the paper and electronic versions of the handover note was discovered, the young solicitor immediately admitted what he had done. An internal investigation followed, after which the firm issued him with a final written warning and referred the matter to the regulator.
While the SDT stressed that dishonesty would “ordinarily” justify striking a solicitor off the roll, it found exceptional circumstances in this case. The misconduct was confined to a single client matter and consisted of two related acts over a short period. There was no personal financial gain and no direct harm caused by the dishonest acts themselves.
The tribunal also placed weight on Williams’ relative inexperience, his immediate admissions, genuine remorse and insight, and the strong support he continued to receive from his firm and colleagues. One partner described the episode as a “moment of madness”, while the colleague who prepared the original handover note said she “held no bad feelings” towards him.
The SDT concluded that a lesser sanction was fair and proportionate. Williams was suspended from practice for two years, with the suspension taking immediate effect, followed by a further two years of practising restrictions, including a ban on holding management or compliance roles.
He was also ordered to pay £16,419 in costs.
(
(
