Nicholas Nikola Stojanovic

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

The Respondent, a solicitor at Ramsdens Solicitors LLP, received a psychiatric (Hosker) report for a vulnerable clinical negligence client on 19 February 2024 but on three occasions (20 March, 28 March and 19 April 2024) told the client he was still awaiting the report. He said he wanted to review it and provide advice before disclosing it, given the client's vulnerability. The Tribunal found the factual allegations proved and found breaches of Principle 7 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code, but expressly found dishonesty (Principle 4), lack of integrity (Principle 5) and breach of Principle 2 not proved, accepting the Respondent's genuine protective motivation. Culpability and harm were assessed as medium. A fine of £15,000 (Level 3 band) was imposed plus costs of £14,361.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Act in the client's best interests

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct was deliberate - the Respondent consciously chose to provide the misleading information on each occasion
• Repeated conduct over several weeks (three occasions), not spontaneous
• Respondent was an experienced solicitor who knew or ought to have known the conduct breached his professional obligations

Mitigating factors:

• Genuine concern for the vulnerable client's welfare motivated the conduct
• Early acceptance of the factual basis of the allegations
• Open and cooperative with the SRA investigation and self-reporting
• Genuine insight, remorse and reflection
• Limited actual harm; client remained satisfied and continued to instruct the Respondent
• Over 20 years' unblemished practice with no previous disciplinary matters
• Positive character references

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