Lawyer suspended for intimidating client with legal threats

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard how Kate Austen, a consultant with Dunn & Baker, sent three emails in just over two hours in an alleged bid to pressure the client – referred to as Client A – in abandoning concerns about the firm’s conduct, warning of facing “meritless claims and exaggerated consequences”.

In the initial email, Austen warned the client that unless she withdrew her complaints and confirmed compliance with a proposed settlement agreement by 4pm the same day, the firm would “not hesitate to issue an application for an injunction to prohibit you from making or continuing with any complaint to the legal ombudsman or the SRA”.

She further wrote that any breach of such an injunction could result in the client being held in contempt of court, “liable to be imprisoned”, as well as ordered to pay the firm’s legal costs.

In response to this email, the client replied that she “strongly disagree[d]” with Austen’s account of the events, and insisted that she had been “bullied and blackmailed into signing the gagging order”.

After the client responded, Austen did not ease her approach; instead, she doubled down, repeating her threat of injunctive proceedings unless the complaint was immediately withdrawn.

The client’s concerns with the firm arose from a protracted dispute over unpaid divorce fees, after she declined to pay the firm’s £34,000 (approximately $64,000) invoice and lodged a complaint, prompting the firm to initiate legal proceedings to recover the alleged debt.

VIEW ALL

The matter was ultimately resolved through mediation, with the client agreeing to pay £25,000 (approximately $47,000); however, she later alleged that the settlement had been signed under coercion or undue influence.

Austen admitted to the tribunal that her conduct amounted to an “abusive approach to litigation”, acknowledging she had threatened meritless claims and adverse costs consequences, and conceded that her emails to the client were “oppressive and inappropriate”.

While the tribunal acknowledged the misconduct carried a “risk of harm”, it accepted that the solicitor had made full admissions, cooperated with the investigation, and expressed remorse, characterising the conduct as an isolated lapse.

However, in its closing remarks, the tribunal issued a sharp warning to legal professionals about the dangers of overstepping ethical boundaries in disputes, describing the case as a “stark reminder” that solicitors must never use threats of legal action to silence complaints.

“This case serves as a stark reminder to the profession of the importance of remaining measured in their communications, particularly when corresponding with members of the public, and of ensuring that they have regard for their professional and regulatory obligations whilst communicating in the course of litigation,” the tribunal said.

Taking all factors into account, the tribunal approved the agreed outcome between the parties and imposed a 12-month suspension on Austen from legal practice.

Once the suspension is served, she will also be subject to a further two-year restriction order, meaning she may only practise as a solicitor in a role approved by the regulator.

She was additionally ordered to pay £25,000 (approximately $47,000) in costs.