header-logo header-logo

10 January 2018
Issue: 7776 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

High cost of failed appeal against SRA allegations

A solicitor has been ordered to pay £54,000 costs after unsuccessfully challenging a £2,000 fine from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Family law solicitor Donna Eloise Cannon, who practised as a sole practitioner at her practice, Perfectly Legal, appealed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after an SRA adjudicator found five allegations against her proven in July 2016. Cannon had been a founding partner at Hampshire firm Principal Law between 2010 and 2015, until a partnership dispute arose.

The SRA’s allegations included that she conducted correspondence in an inappropriate tone, incorrectly used headed notepaper, disclosed sensitive information about her former partner to a client and acted inappropriately when dealing with her bank relationship manager by calling them a ‘dishonest, incompetent idiot’ in an email.

Cannon countered that the adjudicator had shown bias, procedural unfairness, failed to properly consider the evidence and failed to correctly apply the facts and the law.

During the hearing, she admitted acting inappropriately to her bank relationship manager, but denied other wrongdoing.

However, she was unable to convince the tribunal to grant her appeal. Ordering that she pay costs to the SRA, tribunal chair Ms J Devonish said: ‘What had begun as a simple case of five allegations, for which the documents were sufficient proof, had turned on appeal into a three-day substantive hearing.

‘It was not clear to the tribunal why the appellant had apparently so fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the allegations she had faced and the adjudicator’s findings. For whatever reason, she had lost perspective and had pursued an appeal which appeared hopeless given that there was no evidence to suggest any unfairness or bias in the adjudication process.’

Issue: 7776 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll