UK Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Strikes Off Employment Law Solicitor Over False IT Claims and Misleading Conduct

The UK Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has struck off employment law solicitor Alison Clare Banerjee after finding that she misled both the employment tribunal and multiple clients, fabricating IT issues to justify her actions and concealing key case developments. The decision marks one of the more severe disciplinary outcomes in recent months, underscoring the profession’s zero-tolerance stance on sustained dishonesty.

Background to the Case

Banerjee, formerly of Peterborough-based law firm Hunt and Coombs, was representing a claimant in an employment tribunal case. As part of her strategy, she applied to amend her client’s claim. The application was partially contested, leading to a preliminary hearing on 15 June 2022 to address the disputed amendments.

At that hearing, Banerjee unexpectedly withdrew the contested aspects of the application. She told the tribunal that she had not seen an important email from the defendant’s solicitors, Capsticks, outlining their position and providing a draft list of issues — claiming it only came to her attention just before proceedings began.

Her explanation included a technical twist: she alleged that the Hunt and Coombs IT department had confirmed her Microsoft Outlook account was partially compromised by a Mimecast email security system malfunction. This, she said, had caused certain emails to be held without notifying her.

She did not oppose Capsticks’ subsequent application for wasted costs, which the tribunal ordered in the sum of £2,597.64.

The False IT Claim

According to the Law Society Gazette, Banerjee’s claims about IT malfunctions did not withstand scrutiny. Hunt and Coombs conducted an internal review and confirmed there were:

• No recorded IT support tickets from Banerjee about blocked or delayed emails during the relevant period.
   
• No evidence that she had flagged such issues to the firm’s IT team.
   
• A prior Mimecast issue in her account, but it had been resolved in August 2020 — almost two years before the events in question.

The tribunal found her explanation to be deliberately misleading, designed to deflect accountability for her late handling of the Capsticks correspondence.

Misleading the Client

Banerjee compounded her misconduct by giving her client an inaccurate account of the wasted costs order. She told them that the £2,597.64 order arose from a “confusion” and reassured them she would seek to have the record removed from the tribunal’s website.

In reality, the order was a direct consequence of her professional conduct at the preliminary hearing.

More seriously, she accepted a settlement offer on the client’s claim without the client’s knowledge or consent. In doing so, she deprived the client of their right to make an informed decision — a fundamental breach of the solicitor-client relationship.

Pattern of Dishonesty Across Cases

The SDT’s investigation uncovered that Banerjee’s conduct was not isolated to a single matter. In two other client files, she misled clients about the progress and status of their cases.

In mitigation, Banerjee said she told these clients what they wanted to hear “simply to stop them from continuously emailing her”, as reported by the Gazette.

The SDT did not accept this as an excuse. Instead, the panel concluded that this was evidence of a pattern of convenience-driven dishonesty that undermined both client trust and the administration of justice.

Tribunal’s Findings

In its decision, the SDT described Banerjee’s conduct as involving “serious, deliberate, and repeated acts of dishonesty”. The panel noted that:

• The dishonesty persisted over an extended period.
   
• It targeted both clients and the employment tribunal itself.
   
• It went to the core duties of integrity, client care, and proper administration of justice.
   

Given the gravity of the misconduct, the SDT found that no sanction short of striking her off the roll of solicitors would sufficiently protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession.

The tribunal also denied her request for anonymity, stating that transparency in such cases was in the public interest.

The Importance of Honesty in Employment Law Practice

Employment law is a field where solicitor conduct is often under close scrutiny. Cases typically involve highly personal disputes over unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing, and workplace harassment — situations where clients rely heavily on their solicitor’s guidance.

Misleading a client about key developments or outcomes not only damages the individual’s case but can also:

• Erode trust in the legal profession as a whole.
   
• Lead to financial and reputational harm to the client.
   
• Interfere with tribunal processes and waste judicial resources.
   

In Banerjee’s case, the dishonesty reached multiple stakeholders: the client, the opposing party, her own firm, and the tribunal.

Legal and Professional Consequences

Being struck off the roll is the most severe penalty a solicitor can face under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) framework. It means Banerjee can no longer practise as a solicitor in England and Wales.

Other potential consequences include:

• Criminal implications: While the SDT proceedings are regulatory rather than criminal, misleading a tribunal can, in some circumstances, amount to contempt of court.
   
• Civil liability: Clients misled in such a manner may have grounds to bring claims for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.
   
• Reputational harm: The published decision will remain accessible to the public and other regulators, making any future return to legal work difficult.
   

The Wider Message for the Profession

This case sends a clear message from the SDT: repeated dishonesty, even when motivated by convenience or work pressure, will not be tolerated. The decision reinforces key professional principles, including:

• Duty of candour to the court or tribunal — Solicitors must not mislead judicial bodies, whether by statement, omission, or half-truth.
   
• Duty to act in the client’s best interests — Decisions on settlement must always involve the client’s informed consent.
   
• Duty to maintain trust in the profession — Personal workload pressures do not justify dishonesty.
   

Lessons for Employers and Firms

Law firms can draw several lessons from this case to prevent similar incidents:

Robust IT support and record-keeping — Documenting IT issues and support requests can prevent false claims.

Regular file reviews — Spot-checking active files can identify potential issues before they escalate.

Training on professional obligations — Especially around settlement authority and client communication.

Early intervention in performance issues — Providing supervision and support where solicitors are showing signs of case management difficulties.

How Parachute Law Can Help If You’ve Been Misled by a Solicitor

If you believe your solicitor has acted without your consent, failed to keep you informed, or misrepresented your case, you may have options. Parachute Law can:

• Review your matter to identify potential breaches of duty.
   
• Advise on complaints to the SRA or Legal Ombudsman.
   
• Assist in seeking compensation for losses caused by solicitor misconduct.
   
• Represent you in disputes over fees, negligence, or breach of contract.
   

Need help with employment law?

Related Reading:

Does Employment Law Apply to Independent Contractors?

How Much Does an Employment Lawyer Cost?

Does Employment Law Apply to Volunteers?