William Amo

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

Mr Amo, an unadmitted trainee solicitor at Holland & Knight (UK) LLP, was alleged to have dishonestly (or recklessly) misled partners at a 28 January 2020 appraisal meeting by representing he had not failed any LPC examinations/modules, when he had failed a litigation examination sat on 27 August 2019, in breach of Principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. The case rested entirely on the recollections of witnesses, with no contemporaneous notes or minutes of the meeting. Applying the guidance in Gestmin v Credit Suisse on the fallibility of memory, the Tribunal found all witnesses (including Mr Amo) sincere and credible but could not determine which recollection to prefer. It gave weight to Mr Amo's character evidence attesting to his credibility and lack of propensity for dishonesty. The Tribunal concluded the Applicant had not proved its case to the required standard and dismissed all allegations. This was described as a finely balanced decision. The Applicant did not seek costs, and Mr Amo's application for two-thirds of his approximately £60,000 costs (based on delay) was refused; the Tribunal made no order as to costs.

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]