Steven John Docherty
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The Respondent, a solicitor acting for Company A in a litigation brought by the Secondary Complainer over a defective boiler, drafted a settlement offer that included condition 4 requiring the Secondary Complainer to withdraw any complaint to the SLCC against the firm and the Respondent's assistant. This created a potential conflict of interest, as the firm (not the client) primarily stood to benefit. The Respondent acted under time pressure (a hearing was 3 days away) and believed he was carrying out his client's instruction for a "bulletproof" settlement. He later recognised and removed the condition in a June 2022 offer. The Tribunal found he had breached Rule B1.7.2 and that his conduct fell below the standard of a competent and reputable solicitor, but concluded it did not meet the Sharp test for professional misconduct. The Respondent was found NOT guilty of professional misconduct and the Complaint was remitted to the Council of the Law Society under Section 53ZA of the 1980 Act. The Respondent had accepted his conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. Expenses were awarded to the Respondent, restricted by 50%. Publicity to name only the Respondent.
Duties found breached:
Mitigating factors:
- Respondent acted under urgency due to a court hearing only 3 days away
- Respondent genuinely believed he was following his client's instructions for a 'bulletproof' settlement
- The complaint was against the Respondent's assistant, not the Respondent himself
- No actual conflict arose and condition 4 had no impact on the Secondary Complainer or the client's interests
- Respondent later recognised the potential conflict and removed the condition from a June 2022 settlement offer
- Respondent accepted his conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct from an early stage
- Courteous correspondence with the Secondary Complainer throughout
Documents
Source: https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/law-society-v-steven-john-docherty/