Game over.
An Irwin Mitchell solicitor has been struck off after she asked a legal executive to lie to the other side, in a family law matter.
Kirsten Tomlinson, a senior associate in Irwin Mitchell's family law team at the time, was working for a client who was trying to reach a financial agreement with her estranged partner, who was unrepresented.
An agreement was reached, but there were delays as the other party had to sign the consent order, and complete the D81 form (which provides information about the financial situations of both parties).
In September 2023, Tomlinson sent an email to the other party that misled him to believe that an application had been made at court, stating: "Once we receive the signed and completed D81 from you, we will withdraw [the client's] application from Court. Until then it will remain in place”. However, no such application had been made.
Although Tomlinson oversaw the matter as the fee earner, the majority of the day-to-day work was carried out by a junior colleague, Charlotte Watson, a chartered legal executive.
Tomlinson emailed Watson saying: “Tell him client says we will withdraw our application to court as soon as we receive the signed docs from him (he doesn’t know we haven’t issued….we just led him to believe we did)”. The paragraph was signed off with an emoji smiling face 🙂.
Watson said she was surprised and uncomfortable about the email, and decided to speak to an Irwin Mitchell partner about the request.
Tomlinson was called into a meeting by her supervising partner, where she admitted that no application had been made. She said the client was "sick to death" that the matter had gone on "for so long". However, the supervising partner noted: "We have lied to the other side, then said to the junior we are misleading him on purpose" which was "actually very serious." Tomlinson apologised, and said that it had been "stupid".
The SRA brought the matter before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where Tomlinson admitted that she had knowingly misled the opposing party, who was unrepresented, and attempted to involve a junior colleague. She claimed to be acting on her client’s instructions and out of frustration with prolonged proceedings.
The tribunal found that “client instructions do not justify dishonesty” and "solicitors must act honestly and advise clients appropriately."
The tribunal said that "given the deliberate and repeated nature" of the misconduct that "striking off was the only appropriate sanction". Tomlinson was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Comments
46
36
Irwin Mitchell, again!
45
25
What is wrong with people?!
46
29
The article doesn't mention that she went from Irwin Mitchell to Brabners, which seems to have a laissez faire attitude to SRA/SDT matters - in the same year they took on Kirsten Tomlinson, Brabners also took on Rob Arnison following his year's suspension for dishonesty.
36
32
23 January 09:19
Indeed! This is apparently becoming a perceived cultural issue at that Firm. That is surely extremely concerning?
40
29
Quite right for highlighting that the opposing party was unrepresented and therefore more vulnerable, Absolutely sickening behaviour.
34
33
Jeez - has the SRA actually done their job for once and got someone who was actually dishonest in a material way struck off??
What’s the world coming to? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day etc..
67
29
Kudos to the junior
27
61
Yet another incident involving a legal exec - surely time they were banned outright?
56
33
11.36 - what, so the legal execs can't report wrongdoing by solicitors? It's a hot take, certainly. Or can't you read?
33
57
12:19 - all I'm saying is that this is yet another situation in which a client has received a worse overall service and a real solicitor has been struck off, as a direct result of the actions of a legal exec.
Literally no story here if the legal exec hadn't been involved.
47
27
Literally no story here if the legal exec hadn't been involved.
You say it like that's a good thing. There absolutely should have been a story here and the legal exec did the right thing 100%. This story shows that iegal executives are valuable parts of the legal profession as long as they are taken seriously and they take their jobs and concomitant responsibilities seriously, just like qualified solicitors.
39
39
12.53- If the legal exec hadn't been involved then the solicitor would have just sent the untrue email herself. Its very clear that the legal exec is not at fault here .
44
34
Thank god the firm supported the junior in doing the right thing
37
33
Thank god the firm supported the junior in doing the right thing
That's exactly what you'd expect a firm to do. The last thing they want is a reputation for dishonesty.
31
49
It's sad, but 11.36 is right, this is another legal career being wiped out because of a bungling legal exec.
47
26
Well done Charlotte Watson. 👏 Ignore the comments above. Those of us with an IQ larger than our shoe size are grateful to you for helping to remove a bad apple.
25
43
"12.53- If the legal exec hadn't been involved then the solicitor would have just sent the untrue email herself."
Precisely right.
But for the Legal Executive / CILEX paralegal there's no harm done to anyone.
40
30
@19:24 Eh?
Article states
The SRA brought the matter before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where Tomlinson admitted that she had knowingly misled the opposing party, who was unrepresented, and attempted to involve a junior colleague
The Legal Exec blew the whistle on the harm, she wasn't the cause of it. The dishonest solicitor was.
35
27
It could be true about the AI eliminating Litigation Assistants. I contacted Irwin Mitchell a few months ago regarding Litigation on a International level, and received an E-Mail (and I think it was from Charlotte Watson) saying that no-one from Irwin Mitchell couldn't take on my case - even though on an earlier occasion they offered to help me. Perhaps it's the shortage of Legal Executives/available Solicitors, causing the firm to have to refuse cases. Anyway, Ms. Watson did the right thing in reporting the matter, so maybe the SRA is finally cleaning up its act. Back in 2019, the service was awful.
22
27
Yes, it's very different to Legally Blonde and Suits. But still they keep entering the profession en masse.
29
27
Trolls are so Covid exposed era. Next it's going to say "six seven".
26
32
Finding it very odd to watch all these people rally round to defend the Legal Exec here after they've just destroyed a promising legal career.
Makes you wonder if it really is multiple 'people' at all.
30
27
@12:16.
I’m finding it odd that people think it appropriate to criticise someone who did what was (on any rational analysis) the right thing. Watson didn’t destroy a promising legal career. Tomlinson did that when she chose to lie. Tomlinson always had the option of NOT lying, like most of us do every day without difficulty.
Now, without something us actual lawyers like to call “evidence”, you cry that the comments are fake news, just like the Tangerine Toddler.
21
22
Anonymous 23 January 26 15:17
It is what they should do. It is not always what happens. Sometimes they side with the more senior person. You'd be surprised what I have seen dealing with these types of matters.
28
24
When I was a newbie Paralegal in a small conveyancing practice after I graduated, one of the old solicitors told another newbie Paralegal, when about to call the other side "just be vague and tell the other side XYZ". Paralegal the made the call and said to the other side (after some to and fro) "I'm not sure about that - the fee earner just told me to be vague". Said Paralegal was at that time porking the Receptionist. Even she couldn't allow herself to be associated with such idiocy, and ended the relationship.
25
22
@11.09 - is this 'Tangerine Toddler' in the room with us right now?