Natalie Joan Bird

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

The Respondent, a solicitor, forged a client's signature on the last page of his will and dated the testing clause 27 April 2022 to conceal the forgery, then created three fictitious file notes recording a telephone call, Zoom meeting and signing that never occurred. She admitted all averments of fact, duty and misconduct via Joint Minute. The Tribunal found her guilty of professional misconduct in breach of Rule B1.2, expressly finding dishonesty applying the Ivey test. Despite mitigating personal circumstances and a psychiatric report, the Tribunal held the case was not exceptional and ordered strike off as the only proper sanction. The Respondent was found liable in expenses of the Complainers and Tribunal, taxed on an agent and client basis with a unit rate of £14.00. Publicity naming the Respondent only was directed; no compensation ordered.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty

Aggravating factors:

• Finding of dishonesty
• Dangerous nature of behaviour likely to seriously damage the legal profession
• Forgery of a client's signature on a will
• Repeated fictitious file entries attempting to conceal the dishonesty, widening the scope of the original dishonest act

Mitigating factors:

• No previous findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct
• Showed remorse and insight into precipitating factors
• Engaged with the Tribunal and appeared in person
• Cooperated with the Fiscal and entered into a Joint Minute
• Experiencing a stressful time at work leading up to the misconduct
• Dishonesty was of no benefit to her and had no adverse effect on others
• Self-reported to the Law Society and left the firm voluntarily