Clair Hudd
Employee
7169826

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 23 February 2024

Published date: 4 March 2024

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Irwin Mitchell LLP

Address(es): Riverside East, 2 Millsands, SHEFFIELD S3 8DT England

Firm ID: 570654

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Ms Clair Hudd, a former employee of Irwin Mitchell LLP (the Firm), a licensed body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. From the date of this agreement, she is disqualified under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007 from:
   1. acting as Head of Legal Practice of any licensed body
   2. acting as Head of Finance and Administration of any licensed body
   3. being a manager of a licensed body, or
   4. being employed by any licensed body
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. to pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

1.2 In this agreement the term ‘’licensed body’’ means a body which holds a licence in force under Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Ms Hudd was employed by the Firm from 10 January 2022 as an analyst in the Client Care and Resolution Team (CCRT). The CCRT undertake investigations on behalf of clients where they have expressed dissatisfaction about the service they have received from the Firm. Ms Hudd’s role involved communicating with clients, other departments within the firm and external stakeholders.

2.2 On 18 March 2023 Ms Hudd was charged with two counts of causing a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to a program or data held in a computer or to enable any such access to be so secured. This related to Ms Hudd impersonating another individual while using a police web-chat.

2.3 Ms Hudd pled guilty and on 20 June 2023 received sentence of:

1. a 20 day community order
2. a fine of £300
3. A victim surcharge of £95
4. costs of £85.

2.4 On 23 May 2023 the firm terminated Ms Hudd’s employment.

2.5 The firm reported the matter to the SRA on 29 June 2023.

3. Admissions

3.1 Ms Hudd makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. that by virtue of her conduct and conviction she failed to behave in a way which upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by the authorised persons, in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.
2. the nature of her conduct, in impersonating another individual to obtain unauthorised access to data, she failed to act with honesty and integrity, in breach of Principles 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

3.2 Ms Hudd agrees, and the SRA accepts, that her conduct means that it is undesirable for her to be engaged in activities mentioned in section 1.1 (a) (i-iv).

4. Why a section 99 disqualification is appropriate

4.1 Ms Hudd and the SRA agree that a disqualification is appropriate because:

1. the firm is a licensed body
2. Ms Hudd has breached rules as described in paragraph 3 above which, by virtue of section 176 Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), applied to her
3. the conditions in rule 5 of the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2018(DPR) are met, in that:
   1. it is undesirable for Ms Hudd to engage in the activities listed in paragraph 1.1 (a) of this agreement, and
   2. disqualification is a proportionate outcome in the public interest because it will prevent Ms Hudd from undertaking a similar role at another firm and helps maintain trust in the profession.

4.2 It is undesirable for Ms Hudd to engage in the activities listed in paragraph 1.1.(a) of this agreement, for the following reasons:

1. The nature of the conviction, securing unauthorised access to a computer, means that it would be undesirable for Ms Hudd to work at a licensed or authorised body.
2. In working in the CCRT of the Firm Ms Hudd had a public facing role dealing with clients and held a position of trust in dealing with their concerns and complaints. A conviction relating to dishonesty shows a lack of integrity and may cause public trust and confidence in the work she was carrying out to be diminished.

4.3 In deciding that disqualification is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account of the disqualification criteria in rule 3.1 (c) of the DPR and the following mitigation which Ms Hudd has put forward:

1. Ms Hudd has explained that she was vulnerable at the time of the offence and has expressed regret at what happened and has explained it was out of character.
2. The offence did not relate to her work at the Firm, and the Firm had no concerns about the standard of her work.
3. She has fully co-operated with the firm and the SRA.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA will publish this decision. This is a requirement of the Legal Services Board’s rules. We must publish information on enforcement action or sanctions imposed against a licensed body or manager or employee of a licensed body.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Ms Hudd agrees that she will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7. Costs

7.1 Ms Hudd 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.