One year suspension
A “relatively inexperienced” junior solicitor has received a one-year suspension for failing to inform her firm or client that its defence and counterclaim had been struck out.
Samantha Jayne Dyson, a former solicitor at the national firm Plexus Legal, also failed to inform the client’s insurer that it had been subjected to an adverse costs order due to non-compliance with an unless order.
An agreement between the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Dyson outlines that the firm was representing a council’s insurer in a claim concerning a road traffic accident.
Dyson applied for relief from sanctions on behalf of the defendant after the firm failed to file a costs budget on time. In her witness statement, she stated that there was no history of prior failures and that the defendant had fully complied with all other orders and directions.
At a subsequent hearing, the judge noted that the council’s defence and counterclaim had been automatically struck out earlier that year due to a failure to comply with an unless order—an administrative error which the SRA stated was not Dyson’s fault.
After emailing the court to clarify the situation, Dyson was mistakenly informed that the defence had not been struck out. The judge later refused to set aside the strike-out and issued a costs order against the council.
However, Dyson failed to inform the council, its insurer, or her colleagues about the situation, a decision she now says she “deeply regrets”. The firm only learned of it through the barrister instructed on the case.
Dyson, who qualified in 2018, admitted all three allegations in that she caused or allowed a witness statement containing her signed statement of truth to be filed with the court when she knew or ought to have known that an assertion within it was misleading.
Dyson worked in the litigation department of the public sector team at Plexus Legal until she left the firm in 2022. She currently does not hold a practising certificate.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal endorsed the agreed outcome of a one-year suspension, noting it was necessary “to maintain public confidence in the profession and to send a deterrent message to solicitors facing similar situations”.
The tribunal acknowledged that Dyson was “relatively inexperienced” as a solicitor and had “expressed deep regret for her misconduct”. It also noted that administrative errors, for which she was not responsible, had caused some confusion and played a role in her actions.
Dyson also agreed to pay £2,469 in costs.
(
(
