Solicitor struck off after backdated letter misled court over missed service deadline

A clinical negligence solicitor who missed the deadline to serve a claim on an NHS trust, then told the court he had served it on time and backed his account with a backdated letter, has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

The tribunal found all four allegations against Gabriel Awosika proved, including dishonesty, and ordered him to pay costs of £28,498.42. Its judgment was published on 6 October 2026.

Key points

• Mr Awosika failed to serve a claim form on the defendant NHS trust before the deadline of 26 June 2019.
• He then gave the court three witness statements and oral evidence saying the trust had been served, and produced a letter dated 20 June 2019 that a county court judge found had been “prepared on a later date and backdated”.
• The tribunal described his conduct as planned, “calculated and repeated over a sustained period”, and the harm it caused as “extremely high”.
• He did not attend the hearing. The SRA had closed his firm, Astute Dynamic Ltd, on 30 July 2026.

A missed deadline

Mr Awosika, who was admitted in March 2012, issued clinical negligence proceedings for two clients in February 2019. Under the Civil Procedure Rules the claim form had to be served within four months, by 26 June 2019.

The trust was represented by Bevan Brittan LLP, but the firm had told Mr Awosika in February 2019 that it was not instructed to accept service. That meant the claim form had to go to the trust itself.

Bevan Brittan instead received a letter dated 20 June 2019, which arrived on 24 June and enclosed the particulars of claim but not the claim form. When the firm wrote on 11 July to say the trust had not been served at all, Mr Awosika replied the next day: “We have served you and NHS Resolution with a copy of the claim form and particulars of claim.” Certificates of service were completed for Bevan Brittan and NHS Resolution, but none for the trust.

The letter

Bevan Brittan applied to the court for an order that the proceedings had not been validly served. At a hearing on 6 January 2020, Mr Awosika produced a file copy of a letter, also dated 20 June 2019, which he said he had sent directly to the trust with the claim form and particulars.

His evidence changed as the application went on. His first witness statement said he had served only Bevan Brittan and NHS Resolution. His second, dated 3 January 2020, exhibited the letter to the trust. A third, dated 20 January 2020, tried to explain how it had been created. At the hearing on 18 June 2020 he told the court on oath that the trust had been served on 20 June 2019. Neither the trust nor NHS Resolution had received the letter.

His Honour Judge Roberts, sitting at the Central London County Court, rejected his account. The judge noted that the reference, date and address on the letter were in different fonts and that its signature and text differed from the letters sent to Bevan Brittan and NHS Resolution. “If, as Mr Awosika contends, the letters were written at the same time, it is highly unlikely that the font, signature, and text would be different,” he said.

He found Mr Awosika’s statement that he kept no copy of the letter “wholly unconvincing”, and concluded that it “was not prepared at the same time as the letter to Bevan Brittan, was not sent on 20 June 2019 or before midnight on 24 June 2019 and was prepared on a later date and backdated”.

The tribunal’s findings

Mr Awosika denied backdating the letter and denied misleading anyone. The tribunal found the letter had been backdated and not served, and saw no reason to depart from the judge’s conclusions.

“He made a mistake, by failing to serve the NHS Defendant Trust directly, and then covered up his mistake by fabricating a letter, and presenting a misleading version of events repeatedly, in two sworn statements and in oral evidence before the court,” the tribunal said. “His actions were planned.”

It assessed the harm as extremely high. “Missing a limitation period could cause legitimate litigation to be derailed,” it said. “Lying to the court and to the other parties in a case was a serious offence that gravely undermined public trust in the profession.”

It found breaches of Principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Mitigation

In his answer to the allegations, dated 24 October 2025, Mr Awosika pointed to more than 10 years running a successful practice and an unblemished regulatory record. Neither client had complained, and one continued to instruct him. He said that during the period in question he was dealing with his father’s terminal illness and death in July 2019, arranging the repatriation and funeral, and handling legal and care matters for his disabled brother.

The tribunal accepted that he had no previous disciplinary findings, but said the mitigating factors “were of a purely personal nature and did not diminish the seriousness of the misconduct”. It concluded there were no exceptional circumstances that could justify a lesser sanction than striking off after a finding of dishonesty.

The hearing

The three-day hearing began on 7 September 2026. On the morning it opened, Mr Awosika emailed the tribunal to say he would not attend, citing the SRA’s intervention into his practice, and said that being a solicitor was no longer a career he wished to continue. The tribunal proceeded in his absence.

The SRA had intervened in Astute Dynamic Ltd and closed it on 30 July 2026, and his practising certificate was suspended. In written representations to the SRA, Mr Awosika said he did not appeal the judge’s finding on service because the judge had exercised his discretion to allow the claim to be reissued.

Mr Awosika may appeal the tribunal’s decision to the High Court.