John Michael Malins

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

John Michael Malins, an experienced construction litigation solicitor, created a backdated Form N251 (Notice of Funding) and covering letter on 2 May 2014, falsely dated 19 March 2013, to support recovery of a £181,682 ATE insurance premium where the notice had not in fact been served on the opponent. He sent these to the opposing solicitors as 'copies of correspondence last year' and relied on them (and acquiesced in his firm's costs team relying on them) in costs negotiations over about five months. The Tribunal found allegations 1.1-1.3 proved (breaches of Principles 1, 2 and 6) and expressly found dishonesty in respect of allegation 1.3 under the Twinsectra test. Personal/health mitigation did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay £19,000 costs. The SRA later successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal (overturning Mostyn J), so the strike-off order stood and additional costs of the appeals were ordered against the Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonest conduct sustained over approximately five months (May to October 2014)
• Deliberate and calculated use of firm's computer system to extract predecessor firm's letterhead to make documents appear genuine
• Repeatedly relied on backdated documents in formal correspondence to obtain a favourable costs settlement
• Position challenged by opponent but no clarification or correction provided
• Began interactions with colleagues with a lie about how documents were created

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• Full engagement with proceedings
• Personal and family health issues during summer/autumn 2014 (accepted as personal mitigation but not exceptional circumstances, and unsupported by adequate medical evidence)
• Self-report made to the regulator
• Client did not ultimately suffer loss as firm made good the premium
• Positive testimonials and successful transition to consultant role