(unnamed respondent)

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

Gillian Margaret Walker (now Hadley), an unadmitted CILEX Fellow subject to a Section 43 Order made in December 2020, applied to revoke the Order. The SDT applied the SRA v Ali test, considering whether regulatory control remained necessary. Although accepting substantial time had passed with no breaches or new misconduct and that rehabilitation need not be shown only through SRA-regulated employment, the Tribunal found the original misconduct (notably conduct aimed at deterring a witness) serious and that the evidence fell short of demonstrating sufficient insight and rehabilitation. It expressly found her reliance on uninformed referees showed a lack of judgment but was NOT dishonest and not intended to mislead. The application was refused and the Order confirmed. The SRA sought £9,269 costs but, due to late service of the revised schedule (served the morning of hearing) and proportionality concerns, the Tribunal fixed costs at £5,000.

Duties found breached:

• Costs and fee transparency to client
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Insufficient demonstrated insight into the ethical failings underlying the Order
• Reliance on references from referees unaware of the Section 43 Order/regulatory history, revealing a continuing deficiency in professional judgment
• Non-disclosure of the Order to recruitment agency, Council managers and referees

Mitigating factors:

• No breach of the Section 43 Order and no further disciplinary findings
• Significant period (over five years) elapsed since the Order
• Continuous responsible legal/quasi-legal work (Equilaw, Doncaster Council) without complaint
• Ongoing professional development
• Payment of the original costs order
• Name change from Walker to Hadley accepted as arising from divorce, not misleading