(unnamed respondent)

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

Isobel Standing applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to review a Section 43 Order made by an SRA Adjudicator on 26 March 2025. The Adjudicator had found two allegations proved (inaccurate/misleading time recording entries and inaccurate overtime claims) and found her conduct dishonest, without offering an oral hearing. The Tribunal found that fairness required an oral hearing because material facts were in dispute and credibility needed assessment (applying Youssef v SRA), and that the failure to offer one was a serious procedural error. The Tribunal therefore quashed the S.43 Order. The SRA did not contest the substantive application. On costs, the Tribunal held that the Adjudicator's decision was the decision of the SRA, that Baxendale-Walker did not apply to reviews/appeals of in-house SRA decisions (so costs follow the event), and that even if it did apply the serious procedural irregularity was a good reason to award costs. Costs were summarily assessed and reduced from the £54,255 claimed (leading counsel and excessive preparation time disallowed) to £27,000, payable by the SRA.

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