Natalie Joan Bird

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The Respondent, a solicitor admitted in 2016, discovered that a client's (Mr X) will had been left undated after signing in April 2022. Instead of contacting the client to correct it, between 1 and 8 June 2022 she forged the client's signature on the last page of the will, dated the testing clause 27 April 2022 to conceal the forgery, and created three fictitious file notes recording a telephone call, a Zoom meeting and the signing/witnessing of the will that never occurred. She admitted all averments of fact, duty and misconduct via Joint Minute. The Tribunal applied the Ivey test and made an express finding of dishonesty, holding the conduct breached Rule B1.2. Despite mitigation (no prior findings, remorse, insight, cooperation, no benefit to her, no loss to client, stressful working conditions, psychiatric report), the Tribunal found the case not exceptional and ordered strike off, plus liability for expenses.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty

Aggravating factors:

• Finding of dishonesty
• Forgery of a client's signature on a will
• Dangerous nature of the behaviour likely to seriously damage the legal profession
• Attempt to conceal the dishonesty by creating three fictitious file notes, widening and compounding the original dishonesty
• Deliberate thought went into fabricating a cover story; she did not destroy the forged document

Mitigating factors:

• No previous findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct
• Showed remorse and insight into precipitating factors
• Engaged with the Tribunal and appeared in person
• Cooperated with the Fiscal and entered into a Joint Minute
• Self-reported to the Law Society and left the firm voluntarily
• Experiencing a stressful time at work prior to the misconduct
• Dishonesty was of no benefit to her
• No loss or adverse effect on the client or others
• Dishonesty was not over a lengthy period