A High Court criticised a solicitor for his involvement in a case while in a relationship with the claimant, leading a £1.3m claim.
- Richard Morgan, a senior solicitor, was in a romantic relationship with a client while also acting as a solicitor and a witness in her case.
- The court found the claim to be time-barred, with Morgan’s involvement contributing significantly to the ruling.
- Morgan made “untrue statements” and prepared overlapping witness statements, impacting the integrity of the case.
- The judge’s decision highlighted risks when solicitors act as both legal representatives and witnesses in a case.
The High Court, led by His Honour Judge Russen KC, handed down a critical ruling against a senior solicitor, Richard Morgan, over his involvement in a legal case due to his romantic relationship with the claimant, Ellen Kay. Morgan, who was both a witness and Kay’s solicitor, was deemed to have acted improperly in a £1.3m professional negligence claim against Martineau Johnson, now Shakespeare Martineau. The firm was accused of providing negligent advice concerning Kay’s divorce settlement in 2008.
Despite the primary limitation period having elapsed, Kay argued she only became aware of her claim after receiving legal advice in May 2020. However, Judge Russen ruled that Morgan’s dual role influenced the proceedings negatively, underscoring the inappropriateness of a solicitor simultaneously serving as a practitioner and a key witness. Morgan’s conduct in the case led to the court dismissing Kay’s claim on the grounds that it was time-barred.
In his judgment, Judge Russen remarked on Morgan’s “untrue statements” made in letters from his firm, Harrison Clark Rickerbys (HCR), which aimed to obscure delays in advancing the case. Morgan’s drafting of Ms Kay’s witness statement and his own, in overlapping language, further compromised judicial integrity. These actions were considered a conflation of professional obligations and personal interests, which prejudiced the administration of justice.
Furthermore, the court highlighted Morgan’s failure to involve colleagues more familiar with family law, citing his desire to prevent Kay’s financial circumstances from becoming widely known. His involvement in Kay’s claim, prior to her formal instruction of HCR, contributed critically to the limitations issue. Counsel for Martineau Johnson successfully argued that Kay had ‘actual trigger knowledge’ of her legal position long before consulting new counsel in 2020.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Kay should have pursued legal action much earlier than she did, with Morgan’s assistance during 2018 and 2019 being a hindrance rather than a help. His ‘pro bono’ work, which started earnestly in 2018, contributed to the delay in seeking expert advice, which according to Judge Russen, should have been secured by the end of 2018.
This case exemplifies the potential pitfalls when legal representatives become personally involved with their clients, affecting objectivity and legal processes.
