Christopher Mark Hutchings

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

The SRA alleged that Mr Hutchings, a partner at Hamlins LLP, made false and/or misleading assertions during an 18 October 2018 telephone call with opposing solicitor (Solicitor G) - namely that counsel advised his client had a strong case for contempt proceedings and that his client had only heard 'yesterday' about references in Publication 2 (advanced on a dishonest basis as an aggravating feature) - and that he improperly made a threat of litigation to leverage a copyright licence. The Tribunal found the Telephone Attendance Note (prepared a day later, non-verbatim) less reliable than the contemporaneous script and Mr Galbraith's manuscript note, neither of which supported the allegations. It found the copyright licence request was not an improper collateral purpose (being inextricably linked to redressing the underlying grievance per Goldsmith v Sperrings), that Mr Hutchings genuinely believed his client intended to litigate if necessary, and that Counsel M's advice did not establish an improper threat. Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 were dismissed; no express finding of dishonesty was made. The Respondent's application for costs of £655,274.16 was refused and no order as to costs was made, the Tribunal finding the proceedings were not improperly brought.

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