Former law firm partner struck off for misleading client

A former partner who led the personal injury department at Manchester law firm Slater Heelis has been struck off after admitting misleading a client and making improper payments in and out of a client account.

Lynne Muscroft, 53, has also been ordered to pay costs to the Solicitors Regulation Authority of £17,438.

Muscroft, who left her role at Slater Heelis’ Sale, Greater Manchester office in January, 2014, admitted she had mis-used client funds over a period spanning more than 10 years, an SRA hearing was told.

Issues came to let after the firm’s managing partner at the time reported a number of concerns relating to the conduct of Muscroft, including failing to protect the interests of clients, concealing incidences of negligence and failing to notify the firm of associated rule breaches.

The report highlighted that Muscroft had concealed her alleged negligence by making a series of improper payments to “satisfy” clients’ expectations and/or third party cost orders.

Between February and November 2013, the solicitor acted for a claimant client in relation to a dental negligence claim.

She accepted an offer from solicitors acting for the defendants insurer of £5,000 to settle the matter. Muscroft admitted that her client was not aware of the offer and had not instructed her to accept it.

Enquiries carried out by Slater Heelis after Muscroft left her post revealed that she told her client the matter had been settled out of court for £60,500. Muscroft subsequently admitted there had never been an agreement reached in relation to the settlement sum.

Muscroft failed to seek her client’s instructions when accepting an offer made in relation to her case and misled her to believing that she had received a genuine settlement when that was not the case.

She also presented to the defendant’s solicitors, by accepting the £5,000 offer after she had taken instructions from her client when that was not the case.

“The respondent’s (Muscroft) actions in so doing demonstrate a lack of integrity, in that a solicitor of integrity would not mislead their client and opponents as to instructions received and the progress of litigation,” the tribunal said.

“Such actions were not in the best interests of her client, would not satisfy a proper standard of service to her client and would also undermine the trust and confidence the public would place in her and the provision of legal services.”