Philip Julian Paul Hyland

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

Philip Julian Paul Hyland, an experienced solicitor at PJH Law, was found to have improperly threatened legal proceedings in two instances during the COVID-19 pandemic: a December 2021 letter/email to a GP health centre (the 'Scorer letter') seeking a vaccine exemption for Client A to which he knew or believed the client was not entitled, and a December 2021 letter to the MHRA making baseless allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance and corporate manslaughter and seeking outlandish, disproportionate relief. The Tribunal found the correspondence was a disingenuous tactical device to provoke litigation to promote a wider campaign against government public health measures, rather than genuine letters before action. All allegations (save that the Scorer letter was 'abusive') were found proved on the balance of probabilities, including breaches of Principles 2 and 5 (lack of integrity). The Tribunal expressly found there was NO dishonesty - the conduct arose from a 'hubristic mindset of the ends justifying the means' and campaigning fervor that deprived him of objectivity. Seriousness was assessed as high but neither suspension nor strike-off was warranted. He was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £66,500.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct was deliberate, repeated and calculated over a short but intensive period
• Correspondence showed the same methodology - an unwarranted 'weaponisation' of the law using the badge of solicitor to add to intimidatory effect
• Letters were bullying and intimidatory in tone and content and designed to be so
• Wasted recipients' time and public money during a national health emergency
• Insight not commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished 24-year regulatory record with no prior disciplinary findings
• No Ombudsman referrals or professional negligence claims
• Full cooperation with the SRA investigation, including handing over all documents
• No dishonesty found
• Acted with genuine (if misguided) belief and good intentions during an unprecedented health emergency
• Low risk of recurrence
• No breach of trust and no financial gain; suffered professional, personal and financial harm
• Positive character references