Michael Schwartz

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

Following a September 2016 Tribunal decision that found the Respondent had lacked integrity and breached Principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 and imposed a five-year suspension itself suspended subject to conditions, the Respondent applied to vary the condition requiring SRA approval of his employment, arguing it prevented him from working as a freelance criminal solicitor and left him without income. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no change of circumstances and that the condition was a normal, non-punitive measure necessary to protect the public. The Respondent admitted deliberately breaching the condition on 14 September 2016 and gave an account in his oral evidence that contradicted his signed witness statement. The Tribunal referred to 'apparent dishonesty and lack of integrity' displayed during the application but made no express finding of dishonesty, noting the SRA might pursue that separately. It declined to determine the SRA's oral application to activate the suspension without a formal application. The Respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,985.

Duties found breached:

• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience

Aggravating factors:

• Deliberate breach of the condition only days after it was imposed
• Gave two conflicting accounts on the same day - witness statement (para 9) said he mistakenly thought he could work until publication of reasons, but in oral evidence admitted he knew the conditions applied from 9 September 2016
• Application ground shifted at the last minute with no prior notice
• This was the Respondent's third appearance before the Tribunal

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent apologised for the admitted breach
• Content for all other conditions to remain in place