§ discipline
‹ Back

Hubert James

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11368/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 10,828
Dishonesty foundYes

Hubert James, admitted 2005, faced allegations of conducting litigation and exercising rights of audience while unauthorised (replicating earlier ILEX findings), failing to disclose the ILEX findings on practising certificate applications, practising as a solicitor through an unauthorised non-profit (LEL) otherwise than permitted, and providing a false explanation to a s.44B notice that LEL gave a free legal service. The Tribunal found the core breaches proved but rejected lack-of-integrity/dishonesty allegations for 1.1 and 1.2 (accepting plausible explanations). For allegation 1.4 the Tribunal found he repeatedly changed his account to fit the rules, charged his client through LEL despite claiming free service, and acted dishonestly under the Twinsectra test. Given the dishonesty finding and absence of exceptional circumstances or mitigation, he was struck off. Costs of £10,828.30 were awarded but not to be enforced without leave of the Tribunal given his lack of means.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty found in respect of allegation 1.4
  • Repeated conduct - not the first time practising unauthorised, having previously been disciplined by ILEX for similar conduct
  • Concealment of wrongdoing
  • Lack of insight into misconduct
  • Dishonesty took place over a period from August 2014 and he never resiled from it
  • Multiple shifting and inconsistent explanations to deflect scrutiny

Mitigating factors:

  • Allegation 1.1 mirrored conduct already sanctioned by the ILEX Disciplinary Tribunal (no additional sanction imposed for that allegation)
  • Some allegations of lack of integrity/dishonesty (1.1.3, 1.2 and associated dishonesty) not proved
  • No prior SRA disciplinary record

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11368/