Decision record
Lindsey M Fettes
Appeals and appellate references
- Appeal-related document for this matter: source document
- Appeal from a lower decision not linked in this database: section-42za-appeal-by-andrew-stephen-medley
“Unverified” means the upstream page linked an appellate judgment but did not preserve enough context to prove that it was an appeal in this matter.
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Andrew Medley, a trust beneficiary, appealed a Law Society PCSC decision to take no action on his complaint that solicitor Lindsey Fettes failed to respond to correspondence from his agents. The Tribunal found the PCSC had relied on an irrelevant factor (that the solicitor was awaiting a response from Gardner Thorpe) and wrongly implied the appellant's agent should have telephoned, reaching a finding contradictory to the evidence (the actual delay was about five and a half months, not two). The appeal was allowed, the decision quashed, and unsatisfactory professional conduct upheld under Rule B1.9.1. No dishonesty was found. Compensation of £750 was awarded to the appellant, with expenses awarded against the First Respondent (Law Society) taxed on a party and party basis at a unit rate of £18, and publicity ordered.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- One previous finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct against the solicitor
Mitigating factors:
- Conduct at lower end of scale of seriousness
Duties engaged
Documents
Source: https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/section-42za-appeal-by-andrew-stephen-medley/