‘Sad case’
A junior solicitor who fabricated 100 hours of time across four client matters while struggling to meet her billing targets has been struck off, despite the tribunal expressing sympathy for the pressures she faced.
Clare Elizabeth Forster, who qualified in 2019 and was working as a clinical negligence solicitor at national firm Hudgell Solicitors, admitted acting dishonestly but argued that exceptional circumstances should spare her from the profession’s ultimate sanction.
Forster joined Hudgells in March 2022 with a billing target of 125 chargeable hours per month. Between November 2022 and April 2023, she was averaging just 87.7 hours a month, roughly 30% below target, though she was regularly working late into the evening in an attempt to keep up.
The firm responded supportively, according to the public ruling, pausing new case allocations to let her focus on her existing caseload and temporarily reducing her target to 100 hours. A performance improvement plan followed in August 2023. But after a period of sick leave that autumn, things got worse rather than better.
Between June and November 2023, Forster recorded time on work that had never been done. In one instance, she logged 43 units on a client matter that she later admitted had not been carried out, initially blaming an IT failure for the missing file note. In another, an attendance note claimed to document 55 units of work but contained only a date and file reference number. A further 16 hours were recorded against three documents that had not been touched.
When challenged over blank documents she had nonetheless billed time against, Forster admitted she had recorded hours for work she had intended to do later, putting her conduct down to the relentless pressure of hitting her targets.
The tribunal heard how significant personal challenges had taken a serious toll on her mental health and her ability to function in the workplace. It was also submitted that her pattern of late-night time recording should have been a “red flag” to the firm that something was seriously wrong.
The tribunal acknowledged all of this. It described the case as “sad” and accepted there was “substantial mitigation” in the form of her mental health difficulties, personal circumstances and workplace pressure. It also accepted she had acted against her normal character and shown genuine remorse.
But it drew the line at striking off being disproportionate. The dishonesty had not been a single lapse. It had played out over five months, spanned multiple client matters and involved deliberate concealment, including a false explanation blaming IT for a missing file note.The tribunal concluded that while Forster’s mental health had fluctuated, it had not degraded her capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
Forster was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £25,000.
The tribunal took the opportunity to remind solicitors that they “bore a professional responsibility to seek assistance before actions spiralled into serious misconduct.”