Ash Solicitors has been publicly criticised by a district judge for what the court described as a serious failure in professional competence after the firm claimed to represent a client with whom it had not communicated for several months.

The criticism was made in a published judgment, in which the judge expressed strong disapproval of the firm’s conduct and its handling of the proceedings. The case has highlighted the importance of basic client communication and proper instructions before solicitors purport to act on a person’s behalf.

Judge’s Strong Rebuke

According to the Law Gazette, the firm had continued to present itself as representing the client despite apparently having had no contact with that individual for months. The circumstances prompted the district judge to issue an unusually severe rebuke, describing the firm’s conduct as “utter incompetence”.

Ruling in Sabrina Pool v Jean-Paul Pool-[2026] EWFC 226 (B), a copy of the decision which may be read/downloaded below, Deputy District Judge Hales said he was so concerned about the firm’s conduct that he considered it appropriate to deliver and publish a written judgment. ‘It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary,’ said Hales. ‘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. I do not mean to suggest that the Court was misled deliberately, or that Ash Solicitors had anything to gain from their behaviour. But it betrays carelessness, ignorance of the rules and, it is not too strong to say, utter incompetence on their behalf."

STAR OF THE MONTH - Justin Amenuvor Esq.

The Importance of Client Instructions

The episode raises fundamental questions about the solicitor-client relationship. A solicitor’s authority to act is ordinarily grounded in the client’s instructions and the continuing relationship between the legal representative and the person being represented. Where communication has broken down, a firm must take care to establish whether it still has authority to act and whether the client’s position remains accurately represented.