Here you will find a regularly updated list of the outcomes of all cases considered by the Professional Conduct and the Disciplinary Committees (following a change in publications policy with effect from 1st July 2014).
The Register had been alerted to information on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s website that referred to the Registrant’s name and a residential address in relation to a legal firm that falsely claimed to be regulated by SRA and that the Registrant and another person were falsely claiming to be solicitors; which is contrary to clause 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct; and
Despite repeated requests from NRPSI for an explanation and a request for a statement from the Registrant nothing of any substance had been forthcoming; which is contrary to clause 3.16 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The Disciplinary Committee found the allegations proven. Ms Anna Clift of Trowbridge (Reg. no: 17269) was made the subject of an Expulsion Order for a period of two years.
The Register received a complaint alleging that in connection with hearing proceedings the Respondent:
- failed to secure a suitable location for an assignment; and
- was confused about the time of the assignment and appeared to be double-booked.
These represent potential breaches of clauses 3.1, 4.8 and 5.10 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The PCC decided that there was insufficient evidence that the Respondent’s behaviour in the given circumstances would constitute a breach of the Code and therefore would not pass the threshold of misconduct.
The PCC closed the case with no action.
The Register received a complaint alleging that during court proceedings the Respondent:
- had been disruptive by asking for clarifications
- had not been interpreting accurately and rather selectively
- appeared not to follow the proceedings
- kept asking for a court bundle; and
- subsequently had been abusive towards the complainant’s staff over the phone.
These represent potential breaches of clauses 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
With the information before it, and mindful of the burdenof proof, the PCC decided there was no realistic prospect of the DC being able to prove one version of the events over the other to the required standard of proof. However, in the light of the materials before it, the PCC was able to offer advice to the Respondent to always communicate professionally.
The PCC closed the case by offering advice to the Respondent.
The Register received a complaint alleging that in connection with court proceedings the Respondent:
- conducted an assignment from their car (hence failingto secure a suitable location for remote hearing) causing a lot of background noise and disruption.
These represent potential breaches of clauses 3.1, 5.8 and 5.10 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The PCC recognised that the situation in which the Respondent found themselves was not straight-forward and with the evidence available and/or which could reasonably be obtained, the PCC was unable to form a view as to the extent the context, connection and other difficulties on the day could be attributed solely to the Respondent.
Thus, taking matters in the round the PCC was unable to conclude that there is a realistic prospect that the DC would find that the allegation passed the misconduct threshold.
The PCC closed the case by taking no action, however, offered the Respondent advice that when accepting remote assignments, in advance to always undertake a careful risk assessment in relation to:
- overall work capacity.
- management of potential technical, connection stability and confidentiality issues throughout.
The Register received a complaint alleging that the Respondent:
- showed unprofessionalism by lacking relevant terminology;
- accepted a medical term without research;
- was unprofessional in communication with the Complainant;
which is in breach of clauses 3.1, 6.1 and 6.5 of the NRPSI Code of
The PCC has found that there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the
Code of Professional Conduct and took no further action.