Paul James Ross

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 10 January 2022

Published date: 14 January 2022

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Hewitsons LLP

Address(es): Shakespeare House, 42 Newmarket Road, Cambridge CB5 8EP

Firm ID: 487681

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Paul James Ross (Mr Ross), a former employee of Hewitsons LLP (the firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) in relation to Mr Ross that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body
   7. except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 Mr Ross was employed by the firm as a non-qualified fee earner within their Residential Property Business Unit between 24 May 2010 and 25 August 2020.

2.2 The firm were instructed by client A. Mr Ross was the fee-earner dealing with the matter. Client A raised queries to be put to the other side on 9 September 2019. No significant progress was made despite repeated requests from the client for an update from Mr Ross.

2.3 Client A contacted the other side directly on 10 January 2020 who confirmed they had not heard from Mr Ross following their letter dated 30 August 2019. The client informed Mr Ross of this. Mr Ross then generated a letter on the same date which he backdated to 11 September 2019. He forwarded this to both client A and the other side, claiming that he had previously sent the letter in September 2019.

2.4 Mr Ross also misled two other clients by email on 21 October 2019 and 25 October 2019, by confirming that the Land Registry Applications had been progressed when they had not.

2.5 After Mr Ross was furloughed on 6 April 2020, a review of his files was conducted. The backdated letter was discovered and the firm referred his conduct to the SRA on 5 June 2020. Following an internal investigation Mr Ross was dismissed on 25 August 2020.

2.6 When contacted by the SRA, Mr Ross has been co-operative with our investigation.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Ross admits, and the SRA accepts, that:

1. he misled a third party by backdating a letter and wrongly claiming it had been sent on an earlier date
2. he misled two clients about the progress of their matters
3. his conduct as described above was dishonest
4. as a result of his actions in relation to legal practice, he has been involved in conduct which is of such a nature that it is undesirable for him to be involved in legal practice.

4. Why a section 43 order is appropriate

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates non-authorised persons, sets out its approach to using section 43 orders to control where a non-authorised person can work.

4.2 When considering whether a section 43 order is appropriate in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Ross and the following mitigation:

1. Mr Ross has fully admitted the misconduct to the SRA and cooperated with its investigation
2. Mr Ross received no financial benefit from his conduct.

4.3 The SRA and Mr Ross agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

1. Mr Ross is not a solicitor
2. his employment or remuneration at the firm means that he was involved in a legal practice
3. by misleading his clients and a third party, Mr Ross has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice
4. Mr Ross's conduct in relation to that act or default makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

4.4 Mr Ross's conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because it demonstrates he has a propensity to mislead clients and others. If such conduct were to be repeated in future, it would pose a risk to clients and public trust.

4.5 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1 Mr Ross agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying responsibility for the conduct referred to above.

6. Costs

6.1 Mr Ross agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.