Andrew Paul Rose

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

Andrew Paul Rose, a senior associate solicitor with almost 20 years' experience, filed a claim form for Client A's dental negligence claim knowing the stated value (£5,000) was significantly understated to avoid paying the correct £10,000 court fee, which neither the client nor the firm had paid. Months later, he amended the claim form himself to show a value in excess of £200,000 and a £10,000 fee, and served this falsified document on the Defendant without following CPR procedures or paying the correct fee. The claim was ultimately struck out for invalid service. The Tribunal found both allegations proved, including express findings of dishonesty applying the Ivey test. It rejected his mitigation of exceptional circumstances under Sharma/James, finding no clear link between his personal difficulties and the two acts of dishonesty. He was struck off and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found
• Deliberate misconduct occurring on two occasions several months apart
• Second act (falsification) intended to conceal the first wrongdoing
• Mr Rose knew he was in material breach of his obligations
• Degree of planning involved

Mitigating factors:

• Paid costs of counsel and court fee for the unsuccessful strike-out defence
• Misconduct occurred on one file in a previously unblemished career
• Personal difficulties including ill health and death of his mother
• Genuine insight and contrition
• Full and frank admissions at an early stage and cooperation with the SRA
• No previous disciplinary findings
• No personal benefit