The firm also sent a link for a remote hearing to another person without the court’s knowledge
UK deputy district judge Hales has issued a sharp criticism of West London firm Ash Solicitors in a written and published judgment for acting for a person without instructions and making unsubstantiated claims about the supposed client’s mental health, reported the Law Society Gazette.
At a family court hearing for the case of Pool vs Pool this month, Ash Solicitors confessed that it had not received instructions to go on record as Jean-Paul Pool’s legal representative in a financial remedies proceeding that had been scheduled for last February. However, prior to the hearing the firm filed and served a document entitled “respondent husband’s position statement,” per the Gazette.
In the document, the firm alleged that it was “common knowledge” that Jean-Paul had mental health issues and was in the hospital. It posited that he was not in a proper mental state to join proceedings. The firm indicated that it had prepared the statement on his behalf.
Ash Solicitors no-showed the February proceeding and did not advise the court of why. Thus, the hearing was adjourned until this month to facilitate the preparation of a medical report.
Before this month’s hearing, an Ash Solicitors lawyer filed a statement saying the firm had been unable to reach Jean-Paul and informed the court that he had mental health problems. The court learned that the lawyer responsible for communicating with the court was a solicitor apprentice; thus, Hales adjourned the proceeding to determine whether a partner could be called upon to participate.
Ash Solicitors’ Veronica Lartey attended the proceeding and said the firm had not been in touch with Jean-Paul since mid-2025. She indicated that the firm had acted without his instructions in February.
Moreover, the solicitor-apprentice who had handled the matter was found to have sent a remote link for the February hearing to a social worker without informing the court or obtaining permission.
“It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary. As a result of their behaviour, Ash Solicitors essentially misled the court into believing (a) that they had instructions to represent the husband in these proceedings, which they had never had; and (b) that the husband lacked capacity, a statement for which they had no evidence whatsoever,” Hales wrote in his ruling, a snippet of which was published by the Gazette.
He said he was not implying that Ash Solicitors had intended to deliberately mislead the court or that it sought to gain from its conduct. Nonetheless, the firm’s handling of the matter “betrays carelessness, ignorance of the rules and, it is not too strong to say, utter incompetence on their behalf.”
Hales added that the solicitor-apprentice’s error of providing an external party with a link to a confidential proceeding represented “further poor reflection on the firm, as it betrays their failure to ensure proper and competent supervision of non-admitted staff.”
“It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to publish a judgment including such criticism of members of the legal profession. I would hope that this judgment leads to those involved reflecting upon their conduct, seeking further training or guidance, and ensuring that their clients receive a significantly improved level of service in the future,” the judge said in a snippet of the ruling published by the Gazette.
