Philip Julian Paul Hyland

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

Philip Hyland, an employment solicitor at PJH Law, sent two sets of correspondence in December 2021 in the context of COVID-19. The first (the 'Scorer letter') threatened legal proceedings against a GP practice/practice manager seeking a vaccine exemption for travel to which the Tribunal found he knew or believed his client was not entitled; it was aggressive, excessively legalistic and intimidating to a lay party. The second was a letter to the Chair of the MHRA threatening litigation, alleging gross negligence, misfeasance in public office and corporate manslaughter without proper foundation, and demanding outlandish, disproportionate relief (including suspending all vaccinations and a televised Christmas broadcast). The Tribunal found both letters were tactical devices to provoke litigation for an ulterior purpose, contrary to pre-action protocols. All allegations were proved (save that the Scorer letter was not 'abusive'), with breaches of Principles 2 and 5 and Code paragraphs 1.2 and 2.4. The Tribunal expressly found no dishonesty, only lack of integrity. He was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £66,500.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Proper basis for allegations
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct was deliberate, repeated and calculated over an intensive period
• Same methodology amounting to a 'weaponisation' of the law using the badge of solicitor to add intimidatory effect
• Letters were bullying and intimidatory in tone and content, designed to be so
• Disingenuousness and lack of transparency about the true purpose of the correspondence
• Insight not commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished regulatory record over 24 years, no Ombudsman referrals or negligence claims
• Full cooperation with the SRA investigation, including handing over the MHRA letter
• No dishonesty found
• Acted on client instructions and with genuine (if misguided) belief during a national health emergency
• Low risk of recurrence
• No breach of trust; no financial gain; suffered professional, personal and financial harm
• Positive character references