Edward Hugh Johnson & A nother

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

The SRA brought allegations against a solicitor (First Respondent, sole director of Calibre Solicitors/Legal Gateway) and an unadmitted clerk (Second Respondent). The firm, which handled industrial deafness claims, went into administration with widespread negligence found across client files (missed limitation dates, unserved proceedings, struck-out claims, unpaid damages). The Tribunal found the First Respondent breached Principles 8, 4, 5, 7 and 2 - including a failure to act with integrity by misleading client GH - but made NO finding of dishonesty (only lack of integrity). He was struck off the Roll. The Second Respondent was found to have acted in breach of a 1982 s.43 order, to have failed to act in clients' best interests in several matters, and to have failed to act with integrity by submitting a misleading witness statement to the court in the IT matter (again lack of integrity, not dishonesty). He was fined £1,000. Each respondent was ordered to pay £32,191.50 costs (total £64,383), not enforceable without leave given their financial circumstances.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Comply with and respect court orders
• Act in the client's best interests
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Around 126 client cases showed significant signs of negligence, potentially affecting many vulnerable clients
• First Respondent concealed the firm's failures from client GH and did not disclose negligence
• Second Respondent signed witness statements he knew or ought to have known were inaccurate

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent made early full admissions to several allegations
• First Respondent's deteriorating mental health and family bereavement around the material time (though no contemporaneous medical evidence)
• First Respondent's relative youth and inexperience in managing a rapidly growing firm
• SRA had failed to detect the 1982 order in 2001 proceedings (Second Respondent)
• Second Respondent's age (65), retirement and limited means