By David Young-
A personal injury solicitor has been struck off for breaching the rules of The Solicitors Regulation Authourity when he provided misleading information towards a client.
Paul Andrew Smith, admitted in May 2002,that he did not have medical notes relevant to her claim, when e knew this to be untrue, and made reasonable effort to correct this position at any time in 2022.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
It was concluded that he knew or ought to have known that his actions were misleading because it contained information about the availability pf the client’s medical record which he knew was untrue.
It emerged that on 31 December 2022, in response to a Court Order dated 30 August 2022, the
Respondent provided information to the Court and defendants’ solicitor which he knew or ought to have known was misleading by stating that relevant medical records could not be located when they were, in fact, available to him. He had made a file note that the medical evidence he had received was ‘catastrophic’ to the chances of success and potentially put his client at risk of a fundamental dishonesty finding.
Smith, who worked for Nottingham firm Rothera Bray at the time, did not tell the client he had this information and continued to mislead all sides for several months before the truth emerged.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Cliff was representing a pregnant client who was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a road traffic accident. The client suffered abdominal pain as a result and gave birth to Child A via a Caesarean section, rather than naturally. The Respondent sent an email to the court, copied to the
defendants’ legal representative, stating that all relevant records within Client A’s possession and control, except for ambulance records, had been provided.
In January 2023, in an internal meeting at the Firm, the Respondent accepted for the
first time that he was in possession of medical records that stated Client A’s desire to
have a planned Caesarean section. A key part of her claim, which was contested by the driver and insurance company, was that she had intended to have a natural birth.
In August 2022, Smith obtained medical records which clearly stated that the client had told her GP she wanted a caesarean. The same month, the court ordered that the birth plan and related medical notes be disclosed.
Smith told the client he had not received the medical notes or birth plan and prepared a list of documents to that effect for her to approve and sign. He allowed her to sign a witness statement giving an untrue account of documents that were available, an act which could have led to contempt of court proceedings.
At the end of December 2022, Smith emailed the court and the defendants’ lawyers and stated that the client had no copies of any medical notes relevant to the issue of a birthing plan. The solicitor further said that a request had been made for such records but these could still not be located.
It was not until an internal meeting at the firm in January 2023 that Smith accepted for the first time that he had the records but had not disclosed them.
The tribunal said it was unable to determine Smith’s motives, but it was clear that his conduct was sustained over a number of months and that his actions constituted serious misconduct.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar