‘Hot-headed’ misconduct
A former employee of City law firm Eversheds Sutherland has been barred from working in the legal profession after he created invoices for pro bono work.
According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Thomas Elliott was a non-legally qualified project coordinator at the firm and also served as club secretary for a local football team. When a footballer was investigated by a local sports association for disciplinary proceedings, Elliott introduced the player to the firm as a pro bono client.
However, after the matter was resolved, Elliott created two invoices on the billing system seeking to recover costs associated with defending the footballer — even though the firm had worked on the matter on a pro bono basis.
The first invoice, dated 2 August, totalled £79,926.95 and the amount sought was £39,963.47. A second invoice, issued two days later, totalled nearly £96,000. After these invoices came to the firm’s attention, he was subjected to an internal investigation.
When interviewed, Elliott initially denied creating the second invoice. He later admitted to fabricating it using information from the firm’s system. Elliott resigned from the firm in October 2023.
The SRA found that Elliott’s conduct was dishonest, involved misuse of confidential information, and was done without the firm’s knowledge or consent. Though the invoices were never paid, the regulator said Elliott’s actions made it “undesirable” for him to be employed in legal practice.
In mitigation, Elliott told the SRA that he acted not for personal gain but out of frustration over how the footballer and his family had been treated. He also wanted the firm to recover some costs. Elliott described his own behaviour as “hot-headed”.
Whilst the SRA acknowledged his admission, remorse, cooperation, and lack of financial benefit — it nonetheless found the misconduct serious enough to warrant a ban. The regulator concluded: “a person willing to do this is not suitable to work in legal practice. If such conduct were to be repeated in future, it would pose a risk to clients and public trust.”
Elliott was barred from working at or for any law firm in England and Wales without the SRA’s explicit permission. He also agreed to pay £300 in costs.
