Council solicitor struck off after providing false information to colleagues about application to discharge interim care order

A local authority solicitor who provided false and misleading information to colleagues regarding an application to discharge an interim care order has been struck off the roll of solicitors following a judgment of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Kathryn Hazlehurst, who was a solicitor at Oldham Metropolitan Brough Council, admitted all the allegations at the tribunal, including dishonesty, but claimed that health issues, a breakdown and a heavy workload were mitigating factors.

The 42-year-old was admitted as a solicitor in 2007 and had been practising in the family team at Oldham since 2013.

Oldham became aware of issues surrounding Hazlehurst's conduct in March 2022, just after the solicitor had handed in her notice ahead of a move to Manchester City Council. 

In April 2022, Oldham's Assistant Borough Solicitor, Collin Brittan, sent a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about Hazlehurst.

Brittan said that during her notice period, it became known that Hazlehurst had failed to issue an application to discharge a care order in respect of child A.

Child A was made the subject of an interim care order in February 2019. In June 2020, a decision was made to discharge the care order.

Hazlehurst had volunteered to issue proceedings for child A in June 2020, but it later transpired that the hearing date, which was scheduled for 18 March 2022, was not taking place as she had never issued proceedings.

She had initially told colleagues that a hearing was listed for February 2021 but was adjourned due to the unavailability of a guardian.

Hazlehurst went on to tell colleagues that the date had been delayed or that she had got the wrong date on four further occasions.

However, when another solicitor in the family team contacted the court to ask about the hearing, they were told the court did not have anything listed in child A's name.

When her manager texted Hazlehurst to ask where she could find a copy of the application for child A, Hazlehurst sent an email admitting she had not issued proceedings.

In it she said: "Managing the high caseloads with lots of different things to pick up has impacted upon my workload. There was always something else to do and I had to prioritise.

"Unfortunately, it then became a case of burying my head in the sand."

Two weeks later, a district judge discharged the interim care order, following an urgent application issued by the council.

During an investigation carried out by Oldham, Hazlehurst accepted she did not submit the application but said that "things got on top of her," she did not genuinely try to mislead anyone, and that she had suffered a breakdown.

She also explained that she was dealing with a complex and difficult case which impacted her mental health and caused her to suffer from emotional health difficulties and that a close family member had been diagnosed with a significant illness.

In addition, she told the investigation that she had ill health, and that she was admitted to hospital amid her efforts to sort out the child A case.

A disciplinary hearing was later convened in August 2022, which found the allegations against Hazlehurst proven.

Hazlehurst had earlier withdrawn from the appointments process at Manchester and never took up a role at the city council.

The SRA launched proceedings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which considered the case on the papers last month (June 2024).

At the tribunal, the SRA alleged that Hazlehurst had:

• provided false and misleading information to her colleagues regarding an application to discharge an interim care order in respect of child A in breach of any or all of Principles 2,4, and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and Paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.
• inputted false and misleading details about an application to discharge an interim care order in respect of child A, into a case list spreadsheet used by the family team in breach of any or all of Principles 2,4, and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and Paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Hazlehurst meanwhile advanced mitigating factors that highlighted her clean disciplinary record, the admission of her conduct to the SRA and Oldham, a large caseload of 23 cases, chronic health conditions, and an emotional breakdown caused by lockdown and working on a complex and difficult case, among others.

The SDT said the appropriate sanction in light of Hazlehurst's admission to dishonesty "is a striking off from the roll, save in exceptional circumstances".

It noted that the principal focus in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist is on the nature and extent of the dishonesty and the degree of culpability.

In relation to the nature and extent of Hazlehurst’s dishonesty, the tribunal found that it was "not momentary and took place over a lengthy period of time, some 18 months".

It also noted that the dishonesty was "elaborate" in that it involved misleading several colleagues.

"It also involved the Respondent inputting false details about the application (including the date on which the application was purportedly issued and the date and court reference for a fictitious Court hearing) into a spreadsheet that was used by her colleagues," the decision said.

The decision added: "Although the Respondent did not benefit from her dishonesty, there would have been obvious distress and inconvenience caused to Child A's mother by the delay in making the application to discharge the interim care order."

The tribunal concluded that Hazlehurst was "very culpable" for her actions because she was an experienced solicitor with eight years post qualification experience, had direct responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to the misconduct, and because her actions were deliberate and took place over an 18-month period.

The tribunal also noted that Hazlehurst's "poor health at the time of the misconduct (of which there is limited medical evidence and principally relates to her poor physical health) and her working conditions do not amount to exceptional circumstances".

It concluded: "The Respondent accepts that this case does not fall within the small residual category where striking off would be a disproportionate sentence. Accordingly, the fair and proportionate penalty in this case is for the Respondent to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

"The Respondent's misconduct is at the highest level. Protection of the public and public confidence in the provision of legal services requires the Respondent to be struck off the roll."

The tribunal also ordered Hazlehurst to pay costs of £2,780.

Kathryn Hazlehurst has been approached for comment.

Adam Carey