Haley Tansey can no longer work for a law firm without permission from the regulator
A former DWF trainee lawyer who was fired for passing confidential client information to a friend has now been banned from working for a law firm without permission from the regulator.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) imposed a Section 43 control order on Haley Tansey, who was fired from the DWF in 2017 weeks before she qualified.
The regulator found Tansey in violation of its principles and code of conduct after disclosing “confidential information and personal data to a third party on multiple occasions without the company’s permission.” She had forwarded internal emails to a friend, a non-practicing lawyer, saying it was because they “liked to discuss the law with each other.”
Tansey, 49, is a former banker who left the industry in 2009 amid high-profile allegations of a “culture of sexism” at employer HBOS. In particular, she alleged that a drunken colleague forced his way into her hotel room and undressed, while others bragged about their sex lives and watched pornography in the office.
Although her Â£ 600,000 labor court claim against HBOS was unsuccessful, Tansey credited the experience with launching her into a new career in law.
The 2020 Play legal List of the most
The Yorkshire woman started work experience at DWF in 2013 and became an intern in 2015. But her new career came to an abrupt end when she found out she had sent emails containing confidential information to a friend as well. than his personal email account.
This included âlegal advice which was subject to professional secrecy; Updates to Key Client compiled by the respondent; a zero hour contract template produced for a client; and documents relating to disputes with third parties whose identity and personal medical information have been disclosed â. DWF fired her for serious misconduct.
Tansey returned to employment tribunal alleging unfair dismissal by DWF, but lost. In a judgment last year, the court ruled that the material disclosed was “highly confidential” and that his dismissal fell within DWF’s range of reasonable responses.
The SRA concluded that Tansey, although she was not a qualified lawyer at the time, had “caused or been a party to an act or a fault which involved such conduct on her part as, in the opinion of of the Company, it would not be desirable for her to be involved. in legal practice â. He issued him a written reprimand, a fine of Â£ 2,000 and costs of Â£ 1,350, and the section 43 order.
An order under section 43 means that any law firm that wishes to employ the affected person must seek permission from the SRA.
A DWF spokesperson said: “We are delighted that the SRA’s decision is in line with our own findings and that the case can now be closed.”