Kirsten Tomlinson

Introduction

Kirsten Tomlinson is a family law solicitor who was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after admitting that she acted dishonestly in two emails sent during a family law matter. According to an account published by Legal Futures on 26 January 2026, Tomlinson, then a senior associate at Irwin Mitchell in Manchester, first misled a litigant in person (LiP) by telling him that a court application would be withdrawn when no application had in fact been issued, and then asked a newly qualified junior colleague to carry on the deception on her behalf. The colleague, Charlotte Watson, refused to send the requested email and reported the matter to a partner instead. In a statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the SDT, Tomlinson admitted acting dishonestly in relation to both emails and accepted that a strike-off was the “appropriate sanction”.

Background Information

Tomlinson qualified in 2010 and was employed by Irwin Mitchell between January 2020 and September 2023, holding the position of senior associate.

The client at the centre of the case, referred to as “Client A”, instructed Irwin Mitchell on a family matter in 2022. Tomlinson was the fee-earner on the case, but most of the day-to-day work was carried out by Charlotte Watson, a paralegal who qualified as a chartered legal executive in June 2023. Client A and her former partner, referred to as “Person B”, a litigant in person, had been trying to resolve their financial arrangements through a consent order. There had been delays in the proceedings, and further delays in obtaining information from Person B to complete a form D81 statement of information.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The events that led to Tomlinson’s strike-off unfolded over several days in September 2023. At 7.06am on 22 September 2023, Client A sent Watson an email, which was forwarded to Tomlinson because she was on leave. In it, the client told Watson to “say you are instructed to submit court proceedings. And he [Person B] will be hearing from them shortly”. Client A had not replied to a question about whether she would issue proceedings personally, but Tomlinson still emailed Person B that same afternoon to say that, once he sent the signed and completed form D81, “we will withdraw [Client A’s] application from court. Until then it will remain in place”. In truth, no application had been issued, and Person B had been led to believe that one had.

When Watson returned to work on 26 September 2023, Tomlinson sent her an email telling her to keep up the pretence: “Tell him client says we will withdraw our application to court as soon as we receive the signed docs from him (he doesn’t know we haven’t issued… we just led him to believe that we did).” The email was signed off with a smiling face emoji, something Tomlinson herself later admitted was “horrific”. Watson did not send the requested email. Feeling uncomfortable about the email exchanges, she decided to speak to a partner at the firm immediately, and it was this decision to report the matter rather than comply that brought the deception to light.

Public Reaction and Consequences

In an investigation meeting, Tomlinson admitted dishonesty. She faced no disciplinary action within the firm because she was leaving Irwin Mitchell on 29 September 2023, but the firm reported her to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) soon afterwards.

The case was put before the SDT in a statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the tribunal. The SDT said Tomlinson “admitted knowingly misleading the opposing party, who was unrepresented, on two occasions and attempting to involve a junior colleague”. She claimed to be acting on her client’s instructions and out of frustration with the prolonged proceedings, but the tribunal found that neither explanation excused her conduct. The SDT said: “Solicitors must act honestly and advise clients appropriately; client instructions do not justify dishonesty.”

The SRA said her misconduct “did not consist of a one-off moment of madness” and noted that, as Person B was an unrepresented party, there was “a power imbalance” between him and Tomlinson. It was also noted that, instead of correcting the misrepresentation contained in her first email to Person B, Tomlinson “compounded the misconduct by telling her colleague to continue misleading Person B”. The case was publicly reported by Legal Futures under the headline “Strike off for solicitor who told colleague to lie”.

Current Status

Tomlinson has been struck off and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs. The outcome was reached by agreement: she admitted acting dishonestly in relation to both emails and accepted that a strike-off was the “appropriate sanction”. The record does not state the precise date of the tribunal’s decision beyond the publication of the Legal Futures article on 26 January 2026, nor does it state whether Tomlinson has made any application to return to the profession.

As for the underlying family dispute, Client A and Person B “eventually agreed a financial settlement”.

Impact on Their Career/Life

As a result of the tribunal’s decision, Tomlinson can no longer practise as a solicitor, and she was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs. Because she was already due to leave Irwin Mitchell on 29 September 2023, no disciplinary process was concluded within the firm; the professional consequences instead followed from the firm’s report to the SRA and the tribunal’s sanction. The record does not state what Tomlinson has done since being struck off, whether she has worked in any other capacity, or what the wider personal consequences have been for her beyond the loss of her practising status and the costs order.

Sources

• Legal Futures, “Strike off for solicitor who told colleague to lie”, January 26, 2026. source