Alexis Maitland Hudson

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

Alexis Maitland Hudson, a solicitor admitted in England and Wales (1975) and to the Paris Bar (1988), faced Rule 5 and Rule 7 allegations. The Tribunal found he had a beneficial interest in and actively managed EPL, and acted in serious conflict of interest across five loan/sale transactions with his financially vulnerable client Mr Cosser on onerous terms; dishonestly sought to enforce a sham Nanterre Judgment against Mr Cosser while still his client; disclosed confidential client information to Grosvenor Law; took unfair advantage of Mr Cosser through the enforcement and a grossly one-sided Settlement Agreement (including a £500,000 defamation clause and gagging clauses); sought to prevent Mr Cosser complaining to the SRA; and misled the SRA with false statements. Under the Rule 7 allegations (arising from the New York Ramos Judgment) he was found to have dishonestly assisted KK's improper/unlawful 'Dilution' scheme against VG and sent misleading communications concealing the Dilution. Allegation 1 (Rule 7) and the 2007 Code elements of Allegation 1.3 were not proved. Express findings of dishonesty were made on nearly all proven allegations. The hearing proceeded largely in the Respondent's absence after repeated adjournment/dismissal applications based on ill-health were refused. Sanction: struck off the Roll, with costs of £57,720 (strike-out application) and an interim costs payment of £300,000. His subsequent High Court appeal was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Disclose material information to client
• Complaints procedure and handling
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty across all proven matters, including in international jurisdictions
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct continuing over a number of years
• Elaborate concealment of interests, motives and wrongdoing from Mr Cosser, VG and the SRA
• Financial motivation and personal benefit
• Breach of trust of clients, exploiting Mr Cosser's precarious financial position and their friendship
• Sought to defend dishonest behaviour before the Tribunal (false 'without prejudice' statement; describing being 'devious' as not dishonest)
• Insertion of egregious gagging clauses and a grossly disproportionate £500,000 defamation clause in the Settlement Agreement
• No insight demonstrated

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary record
• Made a limited admission of a conflict of interest in relation to the First EPL Loan
• Long career (42 years) with positive character references

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=357720"]