Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A junior lawyer’s attempt to secure an insurance payout for a stolen bike has cost him his legal career after he knowingly submitted a dishonest claim.
A junior lawyer in the UK has been struck off the roll after knowingly lodging a dishonest insurance claim for a stolen bike that was not covered under his policy.
Admitted to practise in 2020, Kieran Ferguson was working as a finance solicitor at global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie when the incident occurred.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that the 31-year-old submitted an insurance claim for a Cannondale Topstone despite the bike not being listed on his Laka Bicycle Insurance policy, which was underwritten by Zurich.
The incident dates back to April 2022, when Ferguson and his partner watched from their window as two masked thieves used an angle grinder to cut through his bike lock. The pair rushed outside in an attempt to give chase, but the thieves had already fled.
While Ferguson’s policy provided £2,500 (approximately $4,750) in cover for a different bike, a Cannondale SystemSix, his stolen bicycle – valued at around £1,699 (approximately $3,200) – was not listed on the policy.
The tribunal heard that on the evening of the theft, Ferguson submitted an online insurance claim for the stolen bike before amending his policy just 10 minutes later to add it to his cover.
That move immediately raised questions for the insurer, prompting Laka to refer the matter to Zurich for further investigation. The insurer ultimately accused Ferguson of deliberately attempting to defraud it and reported his details to the Insurance Fraud Register.
Ferguson denied acting dishonestly, maintaining that he believed his policy provided cover for any bicycle valued up to £2,500, rather than being limited to the specific bike named on the policy schedule.
The tribunal also heard that Ferguson was experiencing significant personal stress at the time, with his barrister pointing to the murder of a close childhood friend, uncertainty surrounding his living arrangements, and the shock of witnessing his bike being stolen.
However, the tribunal rejected Ferguson’s explanation that he believed the policy operated on a multi-bike or value-based basis, finding that its terms were “clear” and that he had demonstrated an understanding of how specific items were added to the policy.
The SDT went further, describing Ferguson’s decision to add the Topstone just minutes after submitting the claim as “compelling evidence” that he knew the bike was not covered and was attempting to create the appearance of insurance retrospectively.
But the tribunal’s concerns did not end with the original claim.
Over a three-week period in 2022, Ferguson provided insurers with a false account of when he had added the Topstone to his policy, initially claiming that the change had been made before the theft.
On 29 April, he asked to withdraw the claim, telling the insurer that the bike was covered under a separate home insurance policy that could pay out more quickly. Zurich refused to accept the withdrawal at that stage, however, and continued its investigation.
Days later, Ferguson was interviewed by an insurer’s claims investigator and maintained that the Topstone had been added to his policy on 8 or 9 April, before the theft.
However, when confronted with records showing the amendment was made on 10 April, he accepted that he had changed the policy afterwards, while continuing to maintain that he believed the policy covered any bike up to the insured value.
The tribunal ruled that Ferguson’s conduct was dishonest, lacked integrity, and undermined public confidence in the legal profession, finding that he had attempted to mislead his insurers.
“The dishonesty was not confined to an immediate reaction to the theft, nor was it a fleeting lapse. It continued over a period during which Mr Ferguson had opportunities to reflect, correct the position, and tell the truth,” the tribunal said.
“The fact that the dishonesty was not sophisticated and was capable of being discovered from the insurer’s records, did not materially reduce its seriousness for the purposes of the exceptional circumstances assessment.”
Despite finding him dishonest, the SDT accepted that Ferguson was “not inherently dishonest” and acknowledged his good character and positive professional record, but rejected the argument that his conduct amounted to a momentary lapse in judgement.
Ultimately, the tribunal found that Ferguson’s mitigation did not amount to the “exceptional circumstances” required to avoid the usual sanction for dishonesty, and he was struck off the roll.
He was also ordered to pay £20,757 (equivalent to more than $39,000) in costs.
