Alexis Maitland Hudson

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

Alexis Maitland Hudson, a solicitor practising in London and as an avocat in Paris, faced Rule 5 and Rule 7 allegations. The Tribunal found that he acted under conflicts of interest in relation to a series of EPL loans and a Deed of Sale benefiting himself at the expense of his vulnerable client Mr Cosser; sought to enforce the (sham) Nanterre Judgment against Mr Cosser without his knowledge; disclosed confidential client information to Grosvenor Law; took unfair advantage of Mr Cosser through enforcement and a grossly one-sided Settlement Agreement (including a £500,000 'defamation' clause); inserted a clause designed to prevent complaints to the SRA; and made false/misleading statements to the SRA. Under Rule 7, he was found to have knowingly assisted an improper/unlawful 'Dilution' scheme orchestrated by his client KK against VG and sent misleading communications concealing the Dilution. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved on the bulk of allegations (applying Ivey), though two allegations (Rule 5 Allegation 1.3 under the 2007 Code, and Rule 7 Allegation 1) were not proved. Numerous preliminary applications by the Respondent (to exclude documents, adjourn, dismiss for abuse of process on health/Article 6 grounds) were refused; the Tribunal found no abuse of process and that he had had a fair hearing. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £57,720 (strike-out application costs) plus a £300,000 interim costs payment, with total costs to be subject to detailed assessment. His subsequent High Court appeal was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Express findings of dishonesty across multiple matters
• Financial motivation
• Misconduct planned, deliberate, calculated and repeated over a number of years
• Breach of trust of clients (Mr Cosser) and third parties (VG)
• Abuse of position and exploitation of a vulnerable client's precarious financial position
• Concealment of his interests, motives and wrongdoing from clients and the SRA
• Insertion of gagging clauses in the Settlement Agreement
• Sought to defend dishonest behaviour (e.g. claiming false statements in negotiation and being 'devious' were acceptable)
• Lack of insight

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary record
• Limited admission of a (technical) conflict of interest on the First EPL Loan

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=357720"]