By Tony O’Reilly-
Two solicitors have become the first legal professionals to face disciplinary proceedings connected to the Post Office Horizon scandal, marking a significant development in efforts to establish accountability for one of the most serious miscarriages of justice in British legal history.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) confirmed that former Post Office general counsel Jane MacLeod (pictured)and solicitor Nick Gould have both been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) over separate allegations relating to conduct that occurred after the scandal had come to public attention.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The referrals represent the first disciplinary charges brought against solicitors arising from the fallout of the Horizon scandal, and signal a new phase in regulatory scrutiny surrounding the conduct of legal professionals connected to the affair.
The SRA has determined that action could now be taken against both solicitors because proceeding with the cases was unlikely to prejudice ongoing criminal investigations or the continuing public inquiry examining the scandal.
The Post Office Horizon scandal has already led to intense scrutiny of the actions of senior executives, investigators, lawyers and advisers involved in the prosecution of hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were wrongly accused of theft, fraud and false accounting.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The faulty Horizon accounting system generated discrepancies that were frequently treated as evidence of criminal wrongdoing, resulting in convictions that have since been overturned in large numbers. The allegations are significant in the context of the Post Office scandal, which is widely regarded as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history.
More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted based on evidence from the faulty Horizon IT system. Many lost businesses, homes, reputations and relationships. Some suffered severe mental health consequences. Because of that history, there is intense scrutiny of anyone who may have played a role in defending the Post Office’s position.
Failing to disclose relevant information, obstructing efforts to uncover the truth, and acting improperly toward victims after the scandal became public, are all amongst the failings of corrupt solicitors exposed by the scandal.
While the public focus has often centred on the conduct of the Post Office and Fujitsu- the company responsible for the Horizon system- increasing attention has also turned to the role played by legal professionals who advised the organisation during key stages of the scandal.
A spokesperson for the SRA today told The Eye Of Media.com that there are more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms linked to this scandal, and that they are exploring a wide range of issues , including disclosure obligations and improper application of privilege to protect communications from disclosure. When asked to elaborate on these, the regulator said it could not go into any further details whilst investigations are live and ongoing.
The case involving MacLeod is likely to attract particular attention because of her senior position within the Post Office during a crucial period in the organisation’s legal battles. MacLeod served as the Post Office’s general counsel between 2015 and 2019, a period that coincided with the landmark Bates litigation, the legal action brought by hundreds of sub-postmasters who challenged the organisation’s handling of Horizon-related disputes. She is now in Australia, where she is believed to be evading further investigation in the UK
The litigation proved to be a turning point in exposing the scale of problems surrounding the Horizon system and ultimately paved the way for wider investigations into the scandal.
As part of the ongoing public inquiry, MacLeod was expected to provide evidence regarding the legal advice she gave to the Post Office during that period, including advice relating to litigation strategy and decisions concerning the disclosure of internal documents.
However, according to information released by the SRA, the regulator alleges that between April and July 2024 MacLeod failed to cooperate fully with the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry in relation to requests that she provide oral evidence. The issue became a notable point of discussion during inquiry proceedings after it emerged that MacLeod, who had relocated to Australia, would not be appearing before the inquiry either in person or remotely.
Inquiry counsel Jason Beer KC informed the inquiry’s chair, Sir Wyn Williams, that efforts to secure her participation had been unsuccessful. He stated that the inquiry would not hear evidence from MacLeod because she lived overseas and would not cooperate. The inquiry’s inability to question a former senior legal adviser generated considerable interest at the time, particularly given the significance of her role during the years when the Post Office was defending claims brought by sub-postmasters.
The allegations now brought by the SRA focus specifically on whether MacLeod fulfilled her professional obligations to cooperate with the inquiry. The tribunal will be responsible for hearing evidence and determining whether any professional rules were breached. The second case concerns solicitor Nick Gould, whose involvement with the wider Horizon story arose from his legal representation of former sub-postmistress Seema Misra.
Misra became one of the most prominent victims of the Horizon scandal after her conviction was eventually overturned. Her case attracted widespread public attention and became emblematic of the devastating impact that wrongful prosecutions had on the lives of affected sub-postmasters and their families.
Gould reportedly represented Misra on a pro bono basis in connection with the successful effort to overturn her conviction in 2021. However, subsequent events have become the subject of regulatory scrutiny.
According to SRA allegations, concerns have been raised regarding Gould’s conduct in relation to legal services provided after the conviction had been quashed. It has previously been reported that following the successful appeal, a retainer agreement was entered into for the provision of commercial legal services and that legal fees later became a source of dispute.
The regulator alleges that between May 2021 and April 2025 Gould failed to provide adequate information concerning likely overall costs, costs that had been incurred and the scope of legal work he had been instructed to undertake. Cost transparency is regarded as a fundamental professional obligation for solicitors, with clients expected to receive sufficient information to understand the likely financial implications of legal representation.
In addition to the allegations concerning costs, Gould is accused of raising invoices without providing adequate justification. It is further alleged that he sent correspondence that was inappropriate and/or offensive and breached duties relating to client confidentiality.
The allegations are understood to involve two unnamed clients. As with the allegations against MacLeod, the claims made against Gould remain unproven. The referral to the SDT initiates a formal disciplinary process through which evidence will be examined and any findings ultimately determined by the tribunal.
When approached for comment regarding the allegations, Gould declined to comment.
The decision to bring disciplinary proceedings against both solicitors is likely to be viewed as a significant milestone in the regulatory response to the Horizon scandal. For several years there has been growing pressure on professional regulators to demonstrate that individuals connected to the scandal are being held accountable where evidence supports regulatory action.
The SRA has previously confirmed that it has been examining a range of issues linked to the scandal and has faced questions about the pace of its investigations. Given the scale and complexity of the events under examination, regulators have had to balance demands for swift action against the need to avoid interfering with criminal investigations and the work of the public inquiry.
That balancing exercise appears to have influenced the timing of the latest referrals.
In a statement accompanying the announcement, Jonathan Peddie, the SRA’s executive director of investigations, enforcement and litigation, said the regulator had concluded that these particular matters could proceed without creating difficulties for parallel investigations. He said
‘This was one of the most severe miscarriages of justice in British history, with devastating impacts on the lives of hundreds of people.
‘Our largest ever investigation, the range of issues are complex, but the fundamentals are simple. Solicitors must meet high professional standards. This includes acting independently, with integrity, and upholding the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
‘Those who have failed to do so should expect serious consequences. We will take action to protect the public and maintain trust in the profession.
‘We are progressing our investigations as swiftly as possible. It is vital we follow due process and get this right. We owe that to everyone impacted by this scandal, as well as the wider public.’
Peddie emphasised that the cases relate to conduct occurring after the central events of the Horizon scandal rather than the original prosecutions themselves.
His comments suggest that the regulator remains cautious about matters that may overlap with ongoing criminal inquiries or evidence being gathered by investigators.
According to the SRA, work is continuing on issues that relate directly to the Horizon scandal itself, with the regulator maintaining close cooperation with both the public inquiry team and the Metropolitan Police
The significance of the latest developments extends beyond the two solicitors involved. For many victims of the Horizon scandal, questions of accountability remain central to the search for justice.
Although hundreds of convictions have been overturned and compensation schemes have been established, concerns persist regarding the actions of individuals and institutions whose decisions contributed to the wrongful prosecution of sub-postmasters.
The role of lawyers has become an increasingly important area of scrutiny because legal advisers were often involved in decisions relating to litigation, disclosure, prosecutions and the handling of complaints.
Critics have argued that legal professionals should be held to particularly high standards given their responsibilities to the administration of justice.
The launch of disciplinary proceedings against MacLeod and Gould therefore represents more than two individual regulatory cases. It signals a willingness by professional regulators to examine whether solicitors met their ethical and professional obligations during a period that continues to cast a long shadow over the legal profession and public institutions.
The tribunal process exists precisely because allegations must be tested through a fair and independent procedure before any conclusions are reached. Both solicitors remain entitled to contest the allegations against them, and no findings of misconduct have been made.
Nevertheless, the cases are likely to attract considerable public and professional attention as they proceed through the disciplinary process.
With the Post Office Horizon Inquiry continuing, criminal investigations ongoing and regulators still examining the conduct of individuals connected to the scandal, the latest referrals suggest that the accountability phase of the Horizon saga is far from over.
For years, attention has focused primarily on the devastating consequences suffered by wrongfully convicted sub-postmasters. Increasingly, however, scrutiny is shifting toward the actions of those who occupied positions of authority and responsibility during and after the scandal.
The disciplinary proceedings against Jane MacLeod and Nick Gould represent the first significant regulatory action against solicitors linked to the scandal’s aftermath. Whether the allegations are ultimately proven will be determined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, but their emergence marks another important chapter in the continuing effort to understand how one of Britain’s greatest miscarriages of justice was allowed to unfold and why it took so long for accountability to follow.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar