When has hiding a mistake ever backfired?
A solicitor has been suspended from practice for deleting incriminating emails.
Heather Roberts qualified in 2007 and was a senior associate in Irwin Mitchell’s Wills, Trusts and Estate Disputes team.
When a client complained in December 2021 that their Particulars of Claim had been substantially amended without their barrister’s approval, the firm investigated the junior lawyer involved in the matter, identified as Ms Williams by the SDT.
Roberts had been supervising some of Williams' matters, so Irwin Mitchell partner Claire-Marie Cornford asked Roberts to provide a full chronology together with a complete run of correspondence demonstrating the history of the document.
Roberts located five email chains between her and Williams from a year earlier which showed she had guided the amendments.
In one chain, Roberts told Williams they didn’t need to use the barrister in the case to add an extra plea to the Particulars. Roberts wrote, “We can add in. Just repeat the advice and cost consequences when sending for signing”.
In another, when Williams sent her the amended Particulars, Roberts replied, “I am happy with that”. She also told Williams she had “Slightly amended” the junior lawyer’s draft letter to the client which stated that the barrister would do a “final check” of the document.
Instead of confessing, Roberts moved the five incriminating email chains from the client file to the recycle bin. Her response to Cornford did not refer to the emails, or her involvement in the Particulars, or her supervision of Williams' amendments.
Her cover-up fell apart when Irwin Mitchell discovered the emails in Williams’ inbox, and established that Roberts had deleted them from the client file.
When confronted, the senior associate admitted deleting the emails but said she couldn’t recall doing so or why. She was signed off work with stress that month and left Irwin Mitchell a few week later in February 2022 by "mutual agreement".
Denying dishonesty at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Roberts said she had been in a “haze” due to worsening health caused by demanding working conditions at the firm.
Roberts told the Tribunal that the pandemic had increased pressure on her, as had personal challenges relating to her daughter starting school. She said that in addition she had developed a depressive illness which impacted on her work, and recalled suffering chest pains and often being tearful in the office.
Roberts said the firm’s discovery of issues with Williams’ files, and being tasked with reviewing them, had added significantly to her burden. The Particulars matter was “the last straw”, and in January 2022 - the time the email deletions were discovered – she was diagnosed with anxiety.
The SRA prosecution accused Roberts of attempting to mislead both the client and Irwin Mitchell “into believing that Ms Williams was entirely to blame for the alleged inadequate PoC”, and said she had sought to “deflect blame away from her on to a junior whom she was responsible for supervising, and to cast herself in a better light”.
In its judgment, the SDT said Roberts “had been motivated to deflect any negative criticism away from herself and camouflage her involvement”, and also found that the evidential status of her medical evidence was “questionable”.
Crucially, she had not deleted one email that sat in the middle of all the others. It showed her in a favourable light, stating, “we can confirm that we will ask Sarah [the barrister] to review the changes etc”.
Its escape from the recycle bin required Roberts “to have exercised conscious thought to differentiate its relevance from the purported irrelevance of the other, deleted e-mails”, said the SDT.
Her selectivity “undermined” her claim to have been in a “haze” and “was indicative of a deliberate and dishonest attempt on her part to shape the narrative”.
However, balanced against her “glowing” character references and “hitherto unblemished record”, the SDT decided that although she had been dishonest, her cover-up was a “moment of madness” and did not warrant striking off. Instead, the tribunal ordered her to be suspended from practice for 12 months, and to pay costs of £25,000.
Irwin Mitchell declined to comment.
Comments
104
43
The cover-up never improves the original mistake. Especially as lawyers don't understand how IT works.
54
46
If she hadn't deleted the emails, would she still have got sent to the SDT?
52
44
This is the price you pay for snitching on Hogan Lovells, you ambulance-chasing melon-farmers...
57
51
Irwin Mitchell again!
95
52
Scum bag behaviour from her to blame the junior. She should have been struck off.
75
45
The business model at firms like this is insane. Partners retain overall responsibility but farm out effectively all day-to-day management of cases to overworked senior associates supervising an army of paralegals and juniors, none of whom really have any clue what's going on and who are simply following protocols. It's a miracle that incidents like this don't happen more (or maybe they do, and we never find out, either because things work out for the client in the end, or because in this line of work clients have low expectations and are unlikely to complain much).
75
45
"Partners retain overall responsibility but farm out effectively all day-to-day management of cases to overworked senior associates supervising an army of paralegals and juniors, none of whom really have any clue what's going on and who are simply following protocols"
That's what the money is for...
You don't get paid over £100k to do photocopying and to ask a grownup to check everything you do to make sure that you have no responsibility for it.
You are a qualified lawyer, you call yourself a 'Senior' associate, and you expect six figures a year to do the job. It's not too much to expect you to be able to manage a case.
If you want six figures to do unaccountable coin-flipping bullshit with no accountability then I don't know what to tell you. Well, other than to get pretty much any job in Tech or Asset Management, but that kind of ruins the final rhetorical flourish on this post so can you just forget those industries exist for a moment.
84
43
I accidentally left a document on a train once, which contains confidential contract negotiating positions for a key client of the firm.
Call from partner next day along with a scanned copy of the email. She asked if it was mine and I said it must be as I was working on the train home. I apologised and thought my career was over.
Partner sounded relieved, thanked me, and then she spoke to client. Client was surprisingly understanding and we retained the mandate – think they appreciated quick action and straightforward approach.
Never made that* mistake again and years later she put me forward for partnership. True story.
*made a few others in the meantime including that one where Outlook 'helpfully' pre-populates the recipient's email address.
106
29
I realised I hadn't filed something in time once. Felt my stomach drop out of my arse. Went to a toilet cubicle, shaking, sat in it for half an hour sweating and debating whether to embark on a cover-up. Instead I gathered myself up, went to the partner's office and confessed. He was not impressed. But it was suddenly no longer just on my mind, and we managed to undo the damage after a while. I'm very, very relieved I didn't pick option A.
81
51
"You are a qualified lawyer, you call yourself a 'Senior' associate, and you expect six figures a year to do the job. It's not too much to expect you to be able to manage a case."
I could be mistaken, but I think the chances of a Senior Associate in the regions at Irwin Mitchell earning six figures is slim to none. For context, a Senior Associate in the regions at, say, Clyde & Co, would be lucky to earn £60k. I reckon it'll be a similar kettle of fish.
56
45
Although, with the benefit of hindsight, doesn't Richard Nixon look better and better?
55
60
"I could be mistaken, but I think the chances of a Senior Associate in the regions at Irwin Mitchell earning six figures is slim to none. For context, a Senior Associate in the regions at, say, Clyde & Co, would be lucky to earn £60k."
Well yes, but that kind of money buys you a townhouse in central Bradford, and you can use the change to pay for a servant to do the cleaning three days a week.
So you've got to remember that it's all relative.
59
47
I very much doubt a senior associate at Irwin Mitchell is being paid anything close to £100,000 whether in London or the regions.
50
44
She wasn't struck off for lying to the client, the firm, her doctor, and the SDT? That's sure to promote faith in the profession.
56
38
We can agree though that her legal team did an excellent job in securing that outcome for her, she must be incredibly grateful.
44
42
Notwithstanding the clear error of judgment/f-up, note the summary of her lived experience of the firm “worsening health caused by working conditions/pressure, consequent haze, depressive illness, chest pains, often tearful in office - topped off with an anxiety diagnosis”. I’d be surprised if she’d want to return to practice.
49
45
"When a client complained in December 2021 that their Particulars of Claim had been substantially amended without their barrister’s approval ..."
----------------
We're not told if the amendment improved, worsened, materially affected or had no effect on the client's position.
If the amendment materially damaged the client’s position, then of course it's serious.
If an improvement, or made no material difference, then the complaint is procedural pedantry; i.e. a technical infringement with limited consequences.
But we're given no indication either way.
54
47
> I very much doubt a senior associate at Irwin Mitchell is being paid anything close to £100,000 whether in London or the regions.
She worked in London, where NQS salaries range between £58 and £76k depending on department.
54
49
I am sorry, but how is this not a striking off offence? Deliberately trying to put the blame on the junior who only followed her instructions.
38
46
Amazed they didn't just send a quick email to court with the changed to the POC and ask them to confirm no objections. Most barristers wouldn't even raise a fee for that if the firm instructs them regularly.
43
53
"note the summary of her lived experience of the firm “worsening health caused by working conditions/pressure, consequent haze, depressive illness, chest pains, often tearful in office - topped off with an anxiety diagnosis”"
Well I certainly can't see any reason to doubt that every word of that is true.
The poor thing, really it's Irwin Mitchell that should be being restricted from practicing.
49
47
Re context/anon comment at 19:06 paragraph 24 of the judgment indicates ‘there was no direct harm to any client in the case’ so no material impact on the case. The fact of dishonesty/integrity = the SDT outcome.
https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/12617.2024.Roberts.pdf
36
40
What is this a reference to, please:
"This is the price you pay for snitching on Hogan Lovells, you ambulance-chasing melon-farmers..."
45
37
@22:35
EXCLUSIVE Hogan Lovells partner suspended after rival lawyer films him watching porn - RollOnFriday
46
37
Anon 10.21 - or just demote yourself to a trainee at any London Gold / Silver firm and earn way more - moron.
41
43
Snitchellgate. The ambulance-chasers got bored looking at their 150th dodgy whiplash claim of the day and started looking at another lawyer's computer across Shoe Lane...
https://www.www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-hogan-lovells-partner-suspended-after-rival-lawyer-films-him-watching-porn
47
51
Shows the fear culture in Irwins. Partner should still have overall responsibility for this mess and should have reviewed work properly.
Perhaps telling new starts / annual IT assessments that you cannot delete any emails, ots all kept.