A lawyer has been suspended from the profession by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for some extraordinary behaviour, which included creating completely fictional progress on her files.
30-year-old Claire Tunstall was reported to the SRA by her firm, Scott Duff and Co Solicitors, for fabricating the contents of a file. Tunstall, who had two years post-qualification experience, had manufactured almost everything on it, including advice from counsel, an admission of guilt by the defendant and two expert reports by an orthopaedic surgeon.
On another occasion, she had panicked when a client "went mad down the phone" because the defendant hadn't agreed to pay an interim settlement, and pretended the other side had changed its mind and sent her client a cheque for £2,000 from the firm's office account.
Tunstall also paid £1,000 of the firm's money to a third client when he told her that he thought the defendant's settlement offer of £3,000, which she had already accepted, was too low. Tunstall told the SRA she "let the client manage her".
Tunstall admitted breaching SRA Principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, but denied acting dishonestly. The SDT agreed. In its judgment it called her behaviour "quite extraordinary", but ruled that she had acted in a "blind panic" in "extremely difficult circumstances".
Tunstall said Scott Duff and Co had dumped 130 files on her when she qualified and gave her ten new client appointments every week. She said she was also secretly put in charge of the firm's Keswick office by her supervising partner because he took frequent, days-long trips to Scotland. However he forbade her from telling other partners about his absences, and told her that if she complained the whole office would be shut down.
The SDT suspended Tunstall indefinitely but did not strike her off, saying she had been placed in an "invidious" and "wholly unacceptable" position by her firm. Tunstall is now working outside the legal profession.
Any lawyers who find themselves getting into difficulty should consider giving LawCare a call.
Tip Off ROF
30-year-old Claire Tunstall was reported to the SRA by her firm, Scott Duff and Co Solicitors, for fabricating the contents of a file. Tunstall, who had two years post-qualification experience, had manufactured almost everything on it, including advice from counsel, an admission of guilt by the defendant and two expert reports by an orthopaedic surgeon.
On another occasion, she had panicked when a client "went mad down the phone" because the defendant hadn't agreed to pay an interim settlement, and pretended the other side had changed its mind and sent her client a cheque for £2,000 from the firm's office account.
Tunstall also paid £1,000 of the firm's money to a third client when he told her that he thought the defendant's settlement offer of £3,000, which she had already accepted, was too low. Tunstall told the SRA she "let the client manage her".
Tunstall admitted breaching SRA Principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, but denied acting dishonestly. The SDT agreed. In its judgment it called her behaviour "quite extraordinary", but ruled that she had acted in a "blind panic" in "extremely difficult circumstances".
 |
"Orthopaedic surgery. Think." |
Tunstall said Scott Duff and Co had dumped 130 files on her when she qualified and gave her ten new client appointments every week. She said she was also secretly put in charge of the firm's Keswick office by her supervising partner because he took frequent, days-long trips to Scotland. However he forbade her from telling other partners about his absences, and told her that if she complained the whole office would be shut down.
The SDT suspended Tunstall indefinitely but did not strike her off, saying she had been placed in an "invidious" and "wholly unacceptable" position by her firm. Tunstall is now working outside the legal profession.
Any lawyers who find themselves getting into difficulty should consider giving LawCare a call.
Comments
98
86
103
88
85
78
84
91
93
90
77
96
Sadly, I suspect the answers to this is "Nothing- he's been allowed to resign from his firm with his head held high and there will be no action taken by the regulator". It's such a joke- the disciplinary process picks up the infractions that the younger end of the profession commits, but the far more damaging actions by those who supposedly have responsibility are left alone.
96
93
96
93
Seems she is happier now in a less stressful job.
103
74
She falsified the contents of client files and lied to clients. That's dishonesty and warrants a striking-off.
The reason she has been treated leniently, both in the SDT and here, is because she is female. If the perpetrator had been a man, he would not have enjoyed any sympathy.