Andrew William Shaw & Craig Stephen Turnbull

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

In a sanctions re-hearing of findings upheld by the High Court (Jay J), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal considered two upheld findings against solicitors Andrew Shaw and Craig Turnbull of Stewarts Law LLP: (1) an express finding of dishonesty relating to the First Respondent's eighth affidavit, which failed to correct the misleading impression that the firm was unaware of the 'K' email/evidence (showing Mr L no longer lived in New York) deployed at a without notice freezing order hearing; and (2) misuse of confidential information (Mr L's asset disclosure) sent to JD in breach of CPR 31.22 and an implied obligation of confidence, with a finding of reckless disregard against the First Respondent only. The Tribunal rejected the SRA's argument that Brett mandated automatic strike off but found no exceptional circumstances within the small residual category. Both respondents were struck off the Roll. Costs were assessed at £36,000 (reduced from c.£51,500, excluding Leading Counsel's advising fees), apportioned £24,000 to the First Respondent and £12,000 to the Second Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose material information to client
• No acting against a former client
• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead the court

Aggravating factors:

• Misleading the court, regarded as one of the most serious offences an advocate/litigator can commit
• Dishonesty by a senior, experienced solicitor (First Respondent) and an officer of the court
• Conduct could have had cost consequences and affected judicial criticism; court was in fact misled
• Nature of confidential information was significant and central to the litigation

Mitigating factors:

• Dishonesty limited to a short period of two or three days, isolated
• Long unblemished careers and strong character testimonials (including oral evidence for First Respondent)
• No pecuniary benefit obtained; Mr L was not ultimately prejudiced and his costs were settled
• Second Respondent's youth, junior status (about 3 years qualified) and inexperience with freezing injunctions, acting under First Respondent's supervision
• Highly pressurised, complex, aggressively fought commercial litigation
• JD's dual role added scope for confusion regarding the confidential information
• Mr JW's affidavit dispelled the suggestion they sought to blame him
• Considerable personal toll and prolonged uncertainty over four-plus years