A solicitor struck off for misleading a client has had her application to get back into the industry declined…

In 2011, Denise Elaine Gammack, born in 1974, admitted to the Roll on 17/03/2003 and previous assistant solicitor at Messrs Beviss & Beckingsale of Law Chambers, High Street, Honiton, Devon was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay costs of over £10,000 for failing to act with integrity while misleading a client and employers about three matters.

Some of these failures concerned a client with a property empire who Ms Gammack admitted to misleading. She believed his expectations of what she could achieve for him ‘were too high’.

In her submission on 11th November to be restored to the roll, Ms Gammack accepted the findings of the previous tribunal. However, it was maintained that even if a solicitor was struck off for dishonesty, the door to the industry was not completely closed for them.

Nevertheless, it was held that for restoration to occur, there had to be firm evidencing that no threat to the public or the reputation of the profession would not occur through this being granted.

Mr Cadman, representing Ms Gammack, reminded the Tribunal that no criminal convictions were made in the previous case and there had been no loss to the public.

The SRA opposed the application, emphasizing that exceptional circumstances needed to be satisfied.

It was also stated that the application had been made too soon, as the initial decision was made less than four years ago.  In addition to this, it was stated that there was inadequate evidence of Ms Gammack’s rehabilitation and a lack of clarity about her future intentions.

The tribunal noted that Ms Gammack had paid all the costs incurred by previous proceedings, accepted her faults and provided evidence that her current employers think positively of her.

It was also found that she had demonstrated her trustworthiness and probity.
Tribunal that no criminal convictions were made in the previous case and there had been no loss to the public.

The SRA opposed the application, emphasizing that exceptional circumstances needed to be satisfied.

It was also stated that the application had been made too soon, as the initial decision was made less than four years ago.  In addition to this, it was stated that there was inadequate evidence of Ms Gammack’s rehabilitation and a lack of clarity about her future intentions.

The tribunal noted that Ms Gammack had paid all the costs incurred by previous proceedings, accepted her faults and provided evidence that her current employers think positively of her.

It was also found that she had demonstrated her trustworthiness and probity.

However, the tribunal concluded that not enough of a period had passed since the original decision for the public to place their trust in her.

For this and a selection of other reasons, it was decided that Ms Gammack failed to fulfil the stringent criteria for restoration to the Roll, and so, the application was refused.

Despite this, the case’s summary did note that “in the case of this applicant, taking into account that there had been no fraud, no theft and no loss of client money, the Tribunal indicated that the door was slightly more open that it may be for others,”, reminding Ms Gammack that she still had some serious work to do before she should make another application.

Ms Gammack was also ordered to repay £1,500 for costs to the Law Society.