A prominent solicitor has been fined for sending ‘threatening’ letters to schools regarding Covid measures, which sparked significant controversy.
- Lois Yvonne Bayliss sent letters to over 240 secondary schools, cautioning them against legal liabilities related to Covid protocols.
- The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the letters contained implied threats, leading to fines against the solicitor involved.
- Bayliss maintained a belief in protecting children, but her actions raised concerns about professional integrity and conduct.
- No proven harm resulted from her letters, yet they caused confusion and distrust within the solicitor profession.
The recent case involving solicitor Lois Yvonne Bayliss has drawn considerable attention due to the nature of her correspondence with numerous secondary schools. Bayliss sent letters that warned schools about potential criminal or civil liabilities if they continued to implement Covid measures.
The letters advised schools against enforcing face-covering mandates, conducting lateral flow tests, and facilitating Covid vaccinations. Notably, these letters concluded with a statement underscoring ongoing observation of the school’s compliance, which was interpreted as an implied threat by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Bayliss, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2006 and runs Broad Yorkshire Law in Sheffield, argued that her actions were driven by a genuine desire to protect children from harm. She claimed her warnings were based on scientific evidence that she believed indicated the harmful effects of Covid measures on children.
Despite Bayliss’s defence, the SDT, supported by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), found she failed to clarify that she was not acting under client instructions nor writing as an official solicitor. This lack of clarity suggested a significant power imbalance between the solicitor and the lay recipients of the letters.
The tribunal stated that a solicitor acting with integrity would be explicit about their capacity and the absence of actual legal proceedings. The implied threats, though not misleading, were clear enough to a layperson to suggest potential legal consequences for non-compliance.
Although no direct harm was established as a result of the communications, the tribunal acknowledged the anxiety and confusion caused by what was perceived as a formal solicitor’s letter. This led to the imposition of a £2,500 fine on Bayliss for professional misconduct.
In addition to the fine, the SDT ordered Bayliss to pay £30,000 in costs, reflecting the complexity and volume of documentation involved in the case. Despite raising £43,000 via a GoFundMe page for legal expenses, the financial penalties further highlighted the seriousness of the professional breaches committed.
The case underscores the importance of clarity and integrity in legal communications, especially during unprecedented times.
