Alison Copeland
Employee
818699

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 6 September 2021

Published date: 13 September 2021

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Heckford Norton

Address(es): Tudor House 2 Letchmore Road STEVENAGE SG1 3HU

Firm ID: 51014

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Alison Copeland (Mrs Copeland) a former employee of Heckford Norton (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her 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 Ms Copeland that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit her to have an interest in the body

   except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission

   1. to the publication of this agreement
   2. she will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Mrs Copeland was employed by the Firm as a Legal Executive within its Private Client Department between 2 January 2019 and 5 August 2020. She has been a Legal Executive since 2001 and is a member of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx).

The Estate of Mrs A

2.2 The Firm were instructed to deal with the estate of the late Mrs A. Mrs Copeland had conduct of the matter and was instructed by the Executor (Client B). Client B had instructed Mrs Copeland to sell shares from the Estate’s portfolio in January and June 2020.

2.3 On 6 July 2020, a complaint was received by the Firm from Client B that there had been a delay in selling the shares resulting in a financial loss. Mrs Copeland had reported to Client B that shares had not been sold as the online sales portal was compromised.

2.4 Mrs Copeland admitted to the Firm on 7 July 2020 that she had misled Client B because she could have sold the shares by telephone but did not do so due to extensive waiting times on the sales telephone line.

2.5 The firm initially suspended Mrs Copeland, but this was lifted on 9 July 2020 after she claimed there were no similar matters that needed to be disclosed.

The Estate of Mr X

2.6 On or around 17 June 2020 the Firm’s Head of Accounts notified fee earners of the random files chosen to be examined in the annual audit, this included the estate of Mr X. Prior to the review on 3 August 2020, Mrs Copeland admitted to the Firm that she had fabricated documents on the file.

2.7 Mrs Copeland took over conduct of the Probate matter in January 2019. The executor of Mr X’s estate, Client Y had been informed that an overpayment of £170.50 had been made to the Estate Account by the DWP. As client account did not hold sufficient funds Client Y paid £170.50 directly to the DWP to rectify this and confirmed payment had been made to the Firm in March 2019.

2.8 Mrs Copeland overlooked this and made a second payment of £170.50 to the DWP in December 2019. The matter concluded and Client Y paid the outstanding balance due to the Firm less the payment made to the DWP on 22 June 2020. To balance client account, Mrs Copeland paid in £170.50 to the Firm’s client account from her personal account on 29 June 2020.

2.9 In order to conceal the events, Mrs Copeland created four attendance notes dated between 21 May 2020 and 29 June 2020. These gave the impression that the second payment of £170.50 had been returned by the DWP to Client Y. Client Y then paid the money into client account.

2.10 Following an internal investigation that confirmed the attendance notes had been fabricated, Mrs Copeland was dismissed on 5 August 2020. She was encouraged to make a self-report of the events to CILEx.

2.11 A report was made to the SRA by the Firm on 13 August 2020.

2.12 Mrs Copeland did not self-report the incidents to CILEx and in her renewal application to CILEx of 21 February 2021 advised that she had had no complaints from clients in the past 12 months. This was untrue.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mrs Copeland makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. she misled client A as to why shares had not been sold
2. she fabricated attendance notes when dealing with the Estate of Mr X to mislead her firm
3. she misled CILEx in her renewal application of 2021
4. her conduct as described in (a), (b) and (c) above was dishonest
5. as a result of her actions in relation to legal practice, she has been involved in conduct which is of such a nature that it is undesirable for her 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 Mrs Copeland and the following mitigation which she has put forward:

1. Mrs Copeland has fully admitted the misconduct to the SRA and cooperated with its investigation.
2. Mrs Copeland received no financial benefit from her conduct.
3. Mrs Copeland states these were isolated errors of judgement brought on by a heavy workload. She felt under extreme pressure and was suffering stress at the time.
4. Mrs Copeland has offered her sincere apologies.

4.3 The SRA and Mrs Copeland agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

1. Mrs Copeland is not a solicitor
2. her employment or remuneration at the Firm means that she was involved in a legal practice
3. by fabricating documents and misleading clients, the Firm and CILEx, Mrs Copeland has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice
4. Mrs Copeland's conduct in relation to the above acts make it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice because it demonstrates she 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.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory process. Mrs Copeland agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

6.1 Mrs Copeland 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 Mrs Copeland 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.