Laurence Price · Investigation Officer, SRA · 30 October 2025 decision
The regulator also has a decision to explain.
Miss E and Mr J dispute the adequacy of the SRA’s assessment. The expanded October submission identified alleged manipulation of utility emails, banking and conveyancing documents, alongside disclosure concerns. Price confirmed receipt on 23 October and closed the file on 30 October. He recognised the falsification allegation but said the court should consider it first.
The written reasons do not separately resolve the financial and disclosure strands or describe an original-to-copy comparison. The challenge is therefore specific: which concerns were tested, which were deferred, and why? See the allegation-by-allegation comparison →
Public confidence requires an accountable assessment.
The SRA’s published mission is: Our mission is to drive confidence and trust in legal services.
Its enforcement strategy treats misleading evidence as a serious regulatory concern even where it does not change the court’s outcome. SRA enforcement strategy ↗
Its assessment guidance asks whether a potential breach is serious enough and capable of proof, taking account of evidence that can realistically be obtained. That makes the offered originals, metadata and witness evidence relevant to the question of further inquiry. Assessment Threshold Test ↗
Its parallel-investigations policy generally favours continuing regulatory work unless there is a real risk of prejudice, but permits waiting where facts or other proceedings make that appropriate. We ask how those considerations were applied here. The guidance does not itself establish that this particular report had to pass the investigation threshold. Parallel-investigations guidance ↗
The 4 November challenge and 8 November promise of a response are part of the same record. A substantive later answer has not been located in the searches reviewed. Read the challenge, search scope and accuracy notes →
Seven questions · Laurence Price and the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Identify the assessment.
Explain the closure.
These are new publication questions arising from historical correspondence. They have not yet been sent; the recorded November follow-up promise is a separate, existing matter. Price is identified by his role on the 2025 decision, not an assumed current position.
Permanent link to this question pack · Read the story behind the questions →
SRA-H01 · Published question · not yet sent
What exactly did you receive—and assess?
Laurence Price, as the Investigation Officer who signed the decision, and the SRA: identify the report, index and exhibit versions received through Mimecast and considered before 30 October 2025. Your 23 October email acknowledged receipt. Which allegations and documents were included in the assessment, and which were excluded or referred elsewhere?
Receipt is established. A document list would make the scope of the decision checkable and separate the October evidence from later expansions.
SRA-H02 · Published question · not yet sent
Which threshold failed, and on what evidence?
For the alleged email alteration, banking-record anomalies, conveyancing discrepancies and disclosure omissions, identify which stage of the Assessment Threshold Test was not satisfied and why. Did the assessment address each conduct allegation, or treat them together as a property dispute? Explain how evidence realistically obtainable was taken into account.
A general reference to disputed facts does not tell the reporter how distinct evidence-integrity concerns were assessed.
SRA-H03 · Published question · not yet sent
What was done to test the disputed copies?
The 21 October submission offered native files, metadata and witness statements. What inquiries were made or considered to obtain the original utility messages, compare them with the court exhibits and establish any changes, redaction notice and preservation of originals? Why was a further discussion or evidence request considered unnecessary, if that was the decision?
The allegation concerns the relationship between originals and copies. Identifying the authentication steps would show whether that question was tested or left for someone else.
SRA-H04 · Published question · not yet sent
Why was a court finding required first?
Your decision relied on the absence of judicial criticism or positive findings. Was that a case-specific evidential decision, or a requirement that the court must first establish misconduct? Identify its policy basis. Explain how the parallel-investigations guidance was considered, including any risk of prejudice, need to preserve evidence and reason to await the civil court.
The published policy allows regulatory work alongside other proceedings. The decision needs a case-specific explanation of why that route was not taken here.
SRA-H05 · Published question · not yet sent
Where is the assessment of the financial and disclosure strands?
What assessment was made of the banking, completion-record and disclosure allegations identified in the October report? Which required further originals or reconciliation, which were answered by the supplied documents, and which were deferred? Identify the non-confidential reasons and the further evidence that would make a difference.
The two-page decision does not separately discuss those documents. This asks for the assessment behind the outcome, rather than assuming every allegation was correct.
SRA-H06 · Published question · not yet sent
Where is the response promised after the challenge?
On 4 November 2025 Mr J challenged the handling; on 8 November the Contact Centre said you or the Report Team would respond in due course. Who considered that challenge, when, and what substantive response was sent? If none was sent, explain the omission and identify who will now provide an answer.
The promise of a follow-up is documented. A substantive later answer has not been located in the correspondence searched for this review.
SRA-H07 · Published question · not yet sent
What would now justify reconsideration?
The closure decision allowed for possible reopening after judicial criticism. In light of the later July 2026 order and any further evidence, identify which issues have actually been determined, the relevant judgment passages and what additional evidence could justify reconsideration. Explain how a challenge to a solicitor’s handling of evidence would be distinguished from an attempt to reverse a property judgment.
A court outcome and a regulatory conduct assessment have different purposes. The answer should identify the actual findings and the remaining evidential route.
The SRA and Mr Price can identify an existing answer or provide a response to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com, quoting the question number. This requests reasons and relevant non-confidential records; it does not ask for protected client material to be published.
Status · 18 September 2026
Further publication questions—not submitted by this publication. These four questions have not been sent to the SRA. No response deadline or SRA decision is recorded for this proposed referral. The four conduct questions below are separate from the seven handling questions above. The family’s criticism of the earlier assessment is now examined in its own section.
The conduct question—not a second trial.
The allegation is that disputed evidence was altered or presented in a misleading way. The task for a regulator would be to assess the solicitor’s and firm’s conduct. It is not to decide ownership of BH68 or reverse the civil court’s decision.
The SRA identifies dishonesty and misleading the court as examples of serious concerns. Anyone can report conduct; client-service obligations do not simply extend to an opposing party. This proposed referral therefore centres on evidence integrity, not a demand that the opponent’s solicitor provide a client service. What the SRA can and cannot investigate ↗
Allegation → record → regulatory question
Three issues. Identifiable evidence.
These are attributed allegations, not findings of a breach. Each entry identifies the record already reviewed and the material needed to test it.
SRA-I01 · Attributed allegation / regulatory concern
The alleged alteration and undisclosed editing
Mr J alleges that Luke Cornwell edited the disputed email chain, put the copy before the court without identifying the changes, and explained the editing only after challenge.
- The reviewed record
- The trial bundle contains the self-forwarded National Grid chain in MJM2 pages 20–25, relied on at paragraph 42 of the second amended claim. No redaction explanation appears in the inspected pleading, exhibit cover or six email pages. The family’s October submissions refer to an explanation in a written Reply; that original Reply was not located.
- Response / comparison status
- Mr J recalls an oral explanation about privileged material before Judge Paul Mitchell, possibly at a strike-out hearing, and says he objected. The hearing date, precise words and any ruling remain unconfirmed. Cornwell’s separate 24 October denial and replacement-copy explanation are recorded in Source T.
- Standards potentially engaged
- Solicitors Code 1.4 and 2.1–2.2 ↗
Potentially relevant to misleading presentation, evidence misuse or alteration of its substance, depending on what the original versions and explanations establish.
SRA-I02 · Attributed allegation / regulatory concern
What the court was told the documents proved
Mr J alleges that the plan and disputed exchange were used to imply BH68 wayleave rights without producing the instrument that supported the position advanced. He says the emails appeared in material verified by a statement of truth.
- The reviewed record
- Paragraph 42, bundle page 33, expressly relies on MJM2 pages 20–25 for the asserted wayleave transfer. The second amended claim is marked filed 23 September 2025; its statement of truth and Cornwell’s signature are on pages 35–36, and the email exhibit is on pages 58–63. This identifies a verified pleaded assertion, not an express certification that every attached message was an untouched native original.
B, pp. 6–7 · C, p. 2 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5 · T, T7: paragraph 42 and MJM2
- Response / comparison status
- The register asks Mr Cornwell and Seldons to identify the actual court use and correct the family’s account if it is wrong. No response to that proposed publication question has been requested yet.
- Standards potentially engaged
- Solicitors Code 1.4, 2.4 and, if applicable, 2.7 ↗
The issues are whether the presentation misled, whether the position was properly arguable and whether a known procedural irregularity likely to affect the outcome required attention.
SRA-I03 · Attributed allegation / regulatory concern
The firm’s preparation, checking and response
Mr J directs the allegation of deliberate misrepresentation and fraud to Seldons LLP as well as Mr Cornwell. The 27 October 2025 notice explicitly addresses the firm and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
- The reviewed record
- The printout and October submissions identify the editing dispute. Document N records the firm-level notice. Seldons’ separately reviewed 28 October letter acknowledges receipt and reserves its position; Cornwell’s 24 October reply denied tampering and supplied further copies. Annex E particularises the insertion allegation. A native-message comparison and firm-level review outcome remain sought.
F, p. 1 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · N, pp. 1–2 · M, pp. 19–20
- Response / comparison status
- Seldons is asked what it stands behind, who supervised or checked the material and whether a partner not involved in preparing it will review the versions. The proposed firm-review question has not been sent.
- Standards potentially engaged
- Firms Code 1.4, 2.1–2.3 and 7.1(a) ↗
The firm has its own duties concerning misleading conduct, compliance controls, records and work done through others. Paragraph 7.1(a) applies the individual litigation standards to firms.
The procedural benchmark · checked 18 September 2026
Where is the notice?
Where is the original?
CPR 31.19(3)–(4) and PD 31B paragraph 35 supply the written-notice and original-preservation benchmarks. The reviewed order allocates this claim to the multi-track; identify any direction affecting their application.
The SRA is asked to examine whether any undisclosed alteration, omission or misleading presentation engages Code 1.4 and 2.1–2.2. The separate court test under CPR 32.14 requires a false verified statement made or caused without honest belief in its truth. The question is what the signatory verified and knew—not an assumption that any edited copy establishes contempt.
Pleading, signature, exhibit and allocation references → · The allegation and hearing recollection →
Standards provide the test.
The documents provide the evidence.
The provisions linked above are an editorial relevance map. The SRA decides which rules apply to the established conduct. The redaction and evidence-integrity provisions were checked again on 18 September 2026; the assessment should use the provisions in force at the relevant dates.
Individual Code ↗ · Firms Code ↗
The SRA’s published assessment asks whether an alleged breach is potentially engaged, sufficiently serious if proved, and capable of proof. It considers evidence that can realistically be obtained as well as evidence already supplied. Meeting that threshold is different from establishing misconduct. Read the Assessment Threshold Test ↗
Direct questions to the regulator
Assess the allegation.
Identify the evidence.
Explain the decision.
All four questions below are proposed. They have not been sent and are not described as ignored.
SRA-BH68-01 · Proposed · not sent
Does this record meet your investigation threshold?
In assessing any further report following the 30 October 2025 closure decision, will you assess the allegations concerning Luke Cornwell and Seldons LLP against each stage of your Assessment Threshold Test? Identify the potential conduct issue, its seriousness if established, and whether the evidence supplied or realistically obtainable can prove it. If a stage is not met, explain which one and why.
A reasoned assessment should address the specific conduct and the available evidence, rather than treating the complaint simply as dissatisfaction with the result of a civil dispute.
Case sources: F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5
Regulatory source: SRA investigation threshold ↗
SRA-BH68-02 · Proposed · not sent
Where is the written notice—and was the court misled?
Will you obtain the original messages, the self-forwarded or edited copy, MJM2 pages 20–25 and the first redaction explanation? Identify the written notice or disclosure-list entry recording any withholding and its grounds, and whether the original was preserved. Assess compliance with CPR 31.19 and PD 31B paragraph 35 against the applicable directions. What did paragraph 42 of the verified amended claim represent, and what did the signatory know? Will you assess whether an undisclosed change or omission misled the court or opponent under Code 1.4, or involved evidence misuse under 2.1–2.2? Identify any transcript or ruling addressing Mr J’s reported objection and any additional evidence needed.
The pleaded reliance and exhibit are now identified. The unresolved questions concern changes, notice and knowledge. A later explanation should be tested against the contemporaneous record, not substituted for it.
Case sources: F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · T, T7: pleading, exhibit and redaction rules
Regulatory source: Solicitors Code: 1.4, 2.1 and 2.2 ↗
SRA-BH68-03 · Proposed · not sent
Will you assess Seldons’ own responsibility?
Who within Seldons prepared and checked the supplied versions; what, if anything, was removed or changed; and who authorised and recorded that decision? Where are the withholding grounds and retained originals? After the challenge and the notice acknowledged on 28 October 2025, what comparison, supervision review or correction followed? Will you assess the firm’s own actions under its compliance duties and the litigation standards applied by paragraph 7.1(a), including whether its 24 October replacement-copy explanation was checked against the original messages?
The firm-level question concerns how the work was controlled and checked. That requires evidence of the firm’s own actions and responsibilities, not a conclusion based only on professional association.
Case sources: F, p. 1 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · T, T7: primary court record
Regulatory source: Firms Code: 1.4, 2.1–2.3 and 7.1(a) ↗
SRA-BH68-04 · Proposed · not sent
What will the reporter be told about the decision?
If further evidence is submitted, will you confirm whether it is assessed under the earlier reference or a new reference and tell the reporter which concerns you will assess, which—if any—fall outside your role, and what further material is required? If you decide not to investigate, will you give the reasons for that assessment, subject to any lawful confidentiality limits? Please identify the available route for supplying new evidence and the circumstances in which the earlier closed assessment could be reconsidered.
The person raising a concern needs to understand whether it was assessed, what the decision addressed and what remains possible. This requests an accountable process, not disclosure of protected investigation material.
Case sources: K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5
Regulatory source: SRA assessment and notification guidance ↗
A formal report needs the underlying record.
A website entry is not a submitted regulatory report. Any formal referral should provide the relevant underlying documents, dates, witness information, contact details and any earlier assessment outcome privately through the SRA’s official reporting route. The source links here open reviewed notes, not original PDFs. These further publication questions have not been submitted, and no new investigation is established.
Official SRA reporting route ↗
For an editorial response or correction to this page, contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com, quoting the question ID. This is The Unanswered Record’s editorial address, not the SRA’s reporting channel.
Any publication of an assessment or response will respect confidentiality and personal information. A regulatory process does not guarantee that protected investigation documents can be released publicly.