William Dooley

Introduction

William Dooley is an England and Wales solicitor, admitted in 2015, who was struck off the roll after he missed a deadline for filing an appeal on behalf of clients and then spent months covering it up with fabricated correspondence. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Dooley, a senior associate at Dorset firm Ellis Jones Solicitors, created and backdated a document purporting to be an extension application, deliberately misspelt the email address used to file it so that it could look as if the correspondence had not been received, and doctored emails to his clients to make it appear he had written to them earlier. When his clients discovered there was no record of any appeal having been submitted, he blamed the typo on his secretary — an account the firm’s supervising partner initially accepted. An investigation by independent IT specialists unravelled the story, Dooley admitted the conduct, and he made an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that he be struck off, with £16,927 in costs ordered on top.

Background Information

Dooley was admitted as a solicitor in 2015 and worked for Ellis Jones, a Dorset firm, where he was a senior associate. The matter that ended his career was procedural in origin: clients involved in a dispute with a bank needed an appeal filed on their behalf, and an extension of time for filing it should have been sought. Dooley missed the deadline in August 2021, and what reached the SDT — the tribunal that hears misconduct allegations against solicitors — was not the missed deadline alone but the months of concealment built on top of it. The case came before the tribunal on the basis of an agreed outcome with the SRA rather than a contested hearing.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. Dooley admitted the conduct and agreed an outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority that he be struck off; the tribunal rubber-stamped it. The findings are regulatory, made before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal — not criminal convictions.

After missing the deadline in August 2021, Dooley created and backdated correspondence which purported to be an extension application. He deliberately misspelt an email address for the filing of the application — missing out a ‘p’ in ‘appeals’ — so that it could look as if the correspondence had not been received. He also created emails purporting to be to his clients and manually amended the recipients and times to appear as if he had emailed earlier.

The concealment held until March 2022, when the firm asked for an update after his clients discovered there was no record of any appeal having been submitted. Dooley claimed that his secretary had been responsible for the typo in the email address, and the supervising partner initially accepted that explanation. A later investigation by independent IT specialists then found evidence of backdating.

Faced with that, Dooley admitted he had been aware of the deadline but had not filed the appeal or an application for an extension of time — meaning the clients had lost their opportunity. He also clarified that his secretary had in fact not been involved.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Dooley made an agreed outcome with the SRA that he should be struck off. In non-agreed mitigation, he explained that he had been experiencing significant pressures at home, balancing the demands of a new-born baby with a demanding professional role, and that these increased pressures and distractions had contributed to a loss of focus and judgement at the relevant time — although they were not used as an excuse. The tribunal struck him off the roll and ordered him to pay £16,927 in costs.

Current Status

Dooley is struck off the roll, which removes his ability to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales, and he was ordered to pay £16,927 in costs. The sanction followed the agreed outcome with the SRA that was put before the SDT, and the report does not indicate any appeal against it. The clients at the centre of the case were left having lost their opportunity to pursue the appeal, the consequence Dooley himself admitted flowed from his failure to file.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The strike-off ends Dooley’s career as a solicitor roughly a decade after his 2015 admission, and it followed not from the missed deadline itself but from the choice to conceal it. A backdated extension application, a deliberately misspelt filing address and doctored emails cost him the profession outright, with £16,927 in costs attached — and his clients bore the practical cost, having lost their opportunity to appeal against the bank. His mitigation pointed to significant pressures at home — balancing a new-born baby with a demanding professional role — which he said had contributed to a loss of focus and judgement at the relevant time, though he did not use them as an excuse. The record also shows an attempt to shift blame onto his secretary that the independent IT investigation dismantled, and which Dooley ultimately corrected himself. Because he admitted the conduct and agreed the outcome with the regulator, the record shows a solicitor struck off on his own admission rather than on contested evidence.

Sources

• Law Gazette, “Solicitor struck off after he missed deadline then created typo cover-up story,” Jun 26, 2026 — source