A solicitor has been struck off the roll after admitting that he secretly worked for an online legal advice platform while employed by a law firm and later lied to his employer when questioned about the arrangement.

Matthew Moss, an employment solicitor who joined Manchester-based Optimal Solicitors in September 2019, worked primarily from home in Cheshire. Around 2021, he began providing legal advice as a “legal expert” on JustAnswer, a US-based online platform that connects members of the public with professionals, including lawyers.

Moss did not disclose the second job to Optimal Solicitors or obtain the firm's permission. His employment contract required him to seek written consent before undertaking outside work that could interfere with his duties or conflict with the firm's interests. He subsequently accepted that he should have sought that consent.

The arrangement came under scrutiny in 2024 after Optimal Solicitors informed Moss that he was being made redundant, giving him a three-month notice period.

During the redundancy period, the firm's legal director and COLP, Chris Germaine, became concerned about the quality and quantity of Moss's work. A review of his emails revealed that he had sent a substantial number of messages from his work account to his personal email address. Among the material were financial records showing significant payments from JustAnswer.

According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Moss received approximately £81,000 from JustAnswer between October 2022 and June 2024, while earning about £45,000 from Optimal Solicitors during the same period. Banking records examined by the firm suggested that the actual payments from JustAnswer could have been even higher.

The firm then suspended Moss and held a formal investigation meeting in June 2024. It was during this meeting that the matter escalated from undisclosed secondary employment into professional misconduct involving dishonesty.

When asked whether he was working for anyone else, Moss denied doing so and said he had not worked for anyone else during the previous four years. When questioned about the payments from JustAnswer, he claimed that the money belonged to his brother, who allegedly worked for the platform and used Moss's account to receive payment.

Moss also said that he was “not at liberty to say” what his brother did. He later admitted that none of these explanations was true. Moss subsequently told the SRA that he had been under immense personal and professional stress at the time of the investigation. He said his mental state was extremely fragile and that he panicked when questioned about the payments.

In mitigation, psychiatric evidence indicated that Moss was likely experiencing an extremely high level of anxiety during the investigation meeting, was psychologically overwhelmed and was focused on managing the immediate situation rather than properly considering the answers he was giving.

However, the mitigating circumstances did not prevent the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) from finding that his conduct amounted to serious dishonesty. The tribunal concluded that Moss had deliberately provided false information in response to legitimate questions from his employer and had attempted to conceal his involvement with JustAnswer through a series of false explanations.

The SDT found that his conduct represented a “significant departure” from the standards of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor. It determined that no sanction short of striking him off would adequately protect the public or maintain confidence in the reputation of the profession. Moss accepted the strike-off as part of an agreed outcome with the SRA. He was also ordered to pay approximately £5,800 in costs.

The issue was dishonesty

The disciplinary proceedings did not establish that having a second job, by itself, automatically warranted striking a solicitor off. The critical issue was that Moss had undertaken outside work without the required disclosure and, when his employer investigated the matter, deliberately gave false answers to conceal it.

A professional may have legitimate reasons for undertaking additional work, particularly in an environment where remote working and online professional platforms have created new opportunities for additional income. However, where an employment contract requires disclosure or approval, failing to comply can create employment and professional consequences.

The situation becomes considerably more serious when a regulated professional responds to an investigation by deliberately lying. In Moss's case, the alleged second job generated substantial income, but it was his subsequent deception that became core to the disciplinary proceedings.

Source: The Law Society Gazette