Edward Hugh Johnson & A nother

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

Edward Hugh Johnson, sole solicitor/director of a personal injury firm trading as Calibre Solicitors, faced allegations arising from the firm's collapse into administration and widespread negligence (around 126 cases). He admitted breaches of sound financial/risk management principles and failure to act in clients' best interests/provide good service. The Tribunal also found he failed to act with integrity by misleading client GH about his case (concealing the firm's negligence) and failed to inform the SRA of the firm's serious financial difficulties. The integrity allegation regarding misleading SRA supervisor Mr Bint was not proved. He was struck off the Roll. The Second Respondent, an unadmitted clerk subject to a 1982 section 43 order, was found to have worked in breach of that order, failed to act in the best interests of several clients, and to have failed to act with integrity by submitting a misleading witness statement to the court in the IT matter. He was fined £1,000. No express finding of dishonesty was made against either respondent (lack of integrity only). Costs of £64,383 were split equally (£32,191.50 each), not enforceable without leave.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Comply with and respect court orders
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct in failing to act in clients' best interests continued over a period of time
• First Respondent took advantage of client Mr GH by concealing the firm's negligence in letters
• Very large number of clients potentially adversely affected (around 126 cases showing signs of negligence)
• Second Respondent not found to be a credible witness; signed statements describing himself as Head of Industrial Disease while denying that role

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent made full and frank admissions to allegations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 before proceedings
• First Respondent's mental ill-health and a family bereavement around the relevant time (though no medical evidence of incapacity at the time)
• First Respondent relatively young and inexperienced in management when firm grew rapidly
• Second Respondent's limited culpability as an employee, not the firm's manager
• SRA's own failure in 2001 to discover the existing 1982 section 43 order, losing the opportunity to address the breach (mitigation for Second Respondent)
• Second Respondent at retirement age with very limited means