Andrew William Shaw & Craig Stephen Turnbull

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

On a sanction re-hearing of two findings upheld by the High Court (Jay J) - an express finding of dishonesty against both Respondents concerning the First Respondent's eighth affidavit (which misleadingly failed to disclose the firm's knowledge of the 'K' e-mail, thereby misleading Roth J on a freezing order application) and a finding of misuse of confidential information (breach of implied confidence and CPR 31.22), with reckless disregard found against the First Respondent - the SDT rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances existed. Both Andrew William Shaw and Craig Stephen Turnbull were struck off the Roll. The Tribunal indicated that, considered alone, the confidential-information matter would have attracted at most a modest fine (First Respondent) and a reprimand (Second Respondent). Costs were fixed at £36,000 total (£24,000 First Respondent, £12,000 Second Respondent), reduced from the £51,514 claimed. The First Respondent's subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Handle inadvertently received material

Aggravating factors:

• Misleading the court, which the Tribunal regarded as of particular gravity given a solicitor's duty as an officer of the court
• Dishonesty spanned two to three days rather than being a single momentary act
• Dishonesty related to a central matter (evasion of service/dissipation) underpinning a worldwide freezing order, not merely procedural
• Potential costs and reputational consequences avoided by the Respondents/firm had the truth not emerged

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished character with strong testimonials and oral character evidence
• Dishonesty related to a narrow point in a very large, complex and aggressively fought commercial case
• The confidential information was not in fact passed to third parties (no harm materialised); JD's dual role added scope for confusion
• Second Respondent's youth, relative inexperience and junior role under the First Respondent's supervision
• Considerable stress and the lengthy period (several years) the proceedings hung over the Respondents, including a period of strike-off and restoration
• Genuine remorse and insight; no likelihood of repetition