Jonathan James Christian
More
Employee
834684
Decision - Employee-related decision
Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)
Outcome date: 16 June 2025
Published date: 10 February 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Irwin Mitchell LLP
Address(es): Riverside East, 2 Millsands, SHEFFIELD, S3 8DT
Firm ID: 570654
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: iQ Student Accommodation
Address(es): Third Floor, 2 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2DB
Firm ID: N/A
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Summary of decision
A finding of dishonesty was made against Mr More, and he was made subject to a disqualification order under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
The SRA has disqualified Mr More from holding any of the following roles in law firms regulated by the SRA:
- Head of Legal Practice
- Head of Finance and Administration
- A manager
- An employee
Reasons/basis
The facts of the case
On 21 March 2023 the SRA received a report from the firm regarding Mr More, a non-authorised individual, working in dispute resolution for the construction and engineering sector at the firm.
The report highlighted concerns the firm had after reviewing Mr More's files whilst he was away on leave because of illness. The firm suspected dishonesty on the part of Mr More in connection with his communications with his clients. It appeared that the contents of several emails to those clients contained false information.
Mr More was interviewed by the firm on 24 January 2023. His employment with the firm was terminated in March 2023.
The Investigation Officer highlighted three cases based on the information supplied by the firm. From these cases, it was found that Mr More:
In respect of client GD:
He failed to arrange a meeting with the client and made false statements on 4 February 2022 that he was dealing with an injunction hearing and subsequent ruling to explain why he had failed to set up that meeting.
In respect of client CD:
He failed to make claim on behalf of the client and made four false statements between 13 July 2022 and 10 October 2022 intended to explain the lack of progress when he knew that no claim had been made.
In respect of client JP:
He failed to make claim on behalf of the client and made a false statement on 14 September 2022 intended to explain the lack of progress when he knew that no claim had been made, and no witness statement had been drafted.
Mr More's conduct was found to be dishonest.
Our decision on sanction
Mr More's conduct breached relevant duties that applied to him as an employee of the firm, namely, paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and SRA Principles 2, 4, and 5.
It was found that it would be undesirable for Mr More to act as a Head of Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, a manager or an employee of a body licensed in accordance with section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Mr More was disqualified from holding any of these roles. He was also directed to pay costs of £1,350.
Paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Firms
You do not mislead or attempt to mislead our clients, the court or others, either by your own acts of omissions or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client).
SRA Principles
SRA Principle 2 - you act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
SRA Principle 4 – you act with honesty.
SRA Principle 5 - you act with integrity.