Raymond John McKeeve

Introduction

Raymond John McKeeve is a corporate partner at the international law firm Jones Day and a registered foreign lawyer who was suspended from practice for two years by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after instructing that electronic material held by a client be destroyed — an instruction of “burn it” — in response to news that a search order had been obtained against the client. The instruction, given on 4 July 2019, led to a determination that McKeeve was criminally liable for contempt of court, and the tribunal’s ruling, with reasons dated 2 June 2026, made the two-year suspension effective from 23 March 2026 alongside a £20,000 costs order. The tribunal accepted that his motivation had been to prevent embarrassment to his wife rather than any pre-arranged plan to destroy evidence, describing his act as a spontaneous piece of “colossal stupidity”, but held that the contempt finding had significantly undermined public confidence in the profession.

Background Information

McKeeve registered as a foreign lawyer in 2017 and practised as a partner at Jones Day LLP, one of the world’s largest law firms. The events leading to his disciplinary case began on 4 July 2019, when he was told that a search order to preserve evidence had been obtained against Client A and Person A — court orders that freeze material and make its destruction a contempt of court. Within that context, McKeeve gave instructions to Person B, in respect of electronic material held by the client, of “burn it” or words similar.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Contempt liability plus regulatory suspension. The criminal-liability finding for contempt of court was a determination of the courts; the two-year suspension is the tribunal’s regulatory sanction on admitted allegations. The tribunal expressly found the motivation was not a conspiracy to destroy documents.

McKeeve admitted the allegations. The tribunal recorded that his motivation for the instruction “was to prevent embarrassment being caused to his wife”, that he was “frustrated and annoyed at himself for having permitted the line between his personal and professional life to become blurred”, and that his actions “were not inspired by a conspiracy, but rather a spontaneous act of ‘colossal stupidity’”. On that basis his culpability was assessed as medium rather than high.

The aggravating core, in the tribunal’s view, was the institutional breach: his actions “had constituted a clear breach of the search order and had thereby caused harm to the proceedings and to the parties, and to the reputation of the profession”, and “the determination that the respondent was criminally liable for contempt of court had significantly undermined public confidence in the profession and had aggravated his misconduct”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

In mitigation, the tribunal credited McKeeve’s cooperation with the SRA throughout, his insight, remorse and remediation, and the fact that the misconduct was “a single episode of very brief duration within the context of a previously unblemished professional career”. Having regard to the absence of dishonesty and the isolated nature of the act, the tribunal concluded that “the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession did not require that the respondent be struck off”, and imposed instead a suspension of two years — a “lengthy suspension” in its words — from 23 March 2026.

The ruling was published among the tribunal’s decisions filed with the Law Society in September 2026. The costs order of £20,000 and the suspended-from-practice period are both recorded in the published decision.

Current Status

McKeeve’s two-year suspension from practice took effect on 23 March 2026. Upon expiry he may return to practice subject to the normal requirements attaching to his registration. The contempt of court determination remains part of the court record, and the tribunal’s published ruling — including the “burn it” instruction, the admission, and the finding of criminal liability — is permanently public.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A two-year absence from practice is a serious interruption for a serving partner at a global firm, and the underlying contempt determination is the rarest and most severe finding the disciplinary system attaches to a lawyer’s conduct short of strike-off. The tribunal’s decision to stop short of striking him off, while explicitly weighing his cooperation and previously unblemished career, left the findings public and the suspension on the record for every future client and regulator to see.

Sources

• Law Society Gazette, “SDT decisions: 25 September 2026,” 25 September 2026 — source