Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Jonathan Peter Durkin

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12734/2025
Date22/08/2025
OutcomeSuspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Recklessness, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension12 months
CostsGBP 24,885
Dishonesty foundNo

Jonathan Peter Durkin, managing partner of the Liverpool office of Prosperity Law LLP, admitted creating a Client Care Letter and Terms of Business on 30 January 2023 and backdating the CCL to appear as though created/sent on 22 September 2020, when a client's file was being reviewed by new solicitors (Firm B). He used an unrelated document from that date as the basis. The SRA had alleged dishonesty (breach of Principle 4) but withdrew it given his admissions and explanation that he genuinely believed such a document had previously existed; the Tribunal granted leave to withdraw. Durkin admitted breaches of Principles 2 and 5, paragraph 1.4 of the Code, and recklessness. The Tribunal initially rejected the proposed 3-month suspension as insufficient and invited a substantial period; the parties agreed 12 months. The Tribunal approved a 12-month suspension and ordered costs of £24,885. No express finding of dishonesty was made (lack of integrity and recklessness found instead).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Seniority as partner, Notary Public and solicitor of over 10 years' experience
  • Created and backdated documents when he knew the file would be scrutinised by Firm B
  • Used an unrelated confidential document created on 22 September 2020 to reinforce the misleading impression, demonstrating planning and calculation
  • Did not admit creation until identified by the Firm's internal review
  • Burden placed on the Firm investigating the allegations
  • Recklessness

Mitigating factors:

  • Single episode of misconduct
  • No previous regulatory history
  • Early admissions, acceptance of breaches and contrition/insight
  • No actual loss to Client A
  • Stress, overwork and personal issues at the relevant time

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

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12734/