Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Angelina Mary Rigby

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11986/2019
Date01/01/2019
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 12,250
Dishonesty foundYes

Angelina Mary Rigby, a solicitor with 26 years' experience and head of the Firm's Clinical Negligence Department, faced allegations arising from a costs budget filed late in clinical negligence litigation. The SRA's case was found to be poorly prepared with significant evidential gaps. Allegations 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6 were not proved because the Applicant could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the costs budget did not exist on 30 June 2017. Allegations 1.2 and 1.3 (backdating letters to opponent and court) were proved as breaches of Principles 2 and 6, but dishonesty was NOT found because the Respondent genuinely believed she was recreating letters that had existed. Allegation 1.4 was proved with an express finding of dishonesty: the Respondent filed an application notice with a statement of truth describing recreated letters as 'copy letters' when she knew they were recreations, which had the potential to mislead the court. Applying Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Tribunal was sure her conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. Given the dishonesty finding and absence of exceptional circumstances (Sharma), the Tribunal ordered strike off and costs of £12,250 (reduced from £26,445.84 due to the sloppy forensic investigation and disproportionate counsel fees).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty found - deliberate and calculated actions
  • Attempted to conceal wrongdoing
  • Very experienced solicitor (26 years) who should have known better
  • Failed to correct the record in later statement to the court of 30 August 2017
  • Sought to transfer blame to the Firm's secretaries

Mitigating factors:

  • Single episode in an otherwise unblemished record
  • Positive character references attesting to professionalism and integrity
  • Some evidence of insight and admissions to some allegations
  • Misconduct took place over a short period of time

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11986/