Two solicitors face rebukes for professional misconduct, impacting public trust.
- Karen Margaret Wishart failed to competently advise a divorce client, leading to cost orders.
- Paul Stephen Hirst delayed passing on client funds, breaching financial protocols.
- The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) deemed the rebukes proportionate to the misconduct.
- Both incidents highlight the importance of upholding client trust and timely service.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has issued rebukes to two solicitors following incidents of professional misconduct that undermined public trust in legal services. An experienced partner in family law, Karen Margaret Wishart, admitted failing to provide competent and timely advice to her client, Mr V, during financial remedy proceedings. Her conduct resulted in adverse cost orders that were not immediately addressed.
According to the SRA, Ms Wishart’s handling of the case demonstrated significant delays and a persistent failure to engage in proceedings. This disregard for timely service ultimately breached the established rules on acting in the client’s best interests. Compounding the issue, Ms Wishart delayed transferring Mr V’s case file to his new solicitors and failed to raise concerns about his mental capacity promptly, further damaging professional trust.
In her defence, Ms Wishart cited difficult personal and professional circumstances, impacting her judgment during the period in question. Despite the misconduct, she cooperated fully with the SRA investigation and ensured that all costs associated with the case were paid in full. The firm did not charge Mr V for any work undertaken during this period.
Separately, Paul Stephen Hirst received a rebuke for mishandling client funds while employed at HBW Law in Barnsley. Mr Hirst accepted £300 in cash for disbursements but failed to deposit the funds into the client account for several weeks, resulting in a deficient account balance. His actions reflected a lack of regard for client financial safeguarding protocols.
While Mr Hirst reported the incident and compensated for the funds post-dismissal, the SRA highlighted his insufficient insight into the seriousness of his conduct. Nevertheless, due to the absence of a repetitive pattern and no sustained harm to the client, a more severe sanction was considered unwarranted.
Both solicitors were subjected to payment of SRA investigation costs, with Ms Wishart charged £600 and Mr Hirst, £1,350. These disciplinary actions underscore the critical nature of maintaining client trust and delivering competent, timely legal services.
The SRA’s actions serve as a reminder of the importance of ethical and professional standards in the legal profession.
