A family lawyer has been fined £17,500 after the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he took unfair advantage of a litigant in person and improperly obtained and disclosed her confidential contact details during private law children proceedings.
Clive Graham Wood was admitted in 1982 and practised as a sole practitioner at CGW Law. In the case in question he represented a father (“Person B”) in family court proceedings in July 2022. The complaint was brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following a report from the opposing party (“Person M”) in November 2022.
The events giving rise to the proceedings began on 8 July 2022, when Clive Graham Wood received instructions from Person B in relation to family court proceedings concerning arrangements for a child. At that stage, Mr Wood was aware that Person B did not have the current address of the child or of Person M. On 10 July 2022, Person M submitted documentation to the family court, including allegations of abuse and confidential contact details, which were not to be disclosed without judicial direction.
On 13 July 2022, Mr Wood first contacted Person M by email. In that correspondence, he informed her that he acted for Person B and requested her address and telephone number. He stated that, if she did not provide the information voluntarily, he would seek a court order compelling disclosure. Later that day, Person M responded, declining to provide the details and confirming that the court already held them. Two days later, on 15 July 2022, Mr Wood renewed his request for Person M’s contact details following further communication with his client. Person M again refused, explaining that she preferred contact via email and reiterating that the court held her details. She also indicated concerns about direct contact with Person B.
Mr Wood instructed a private investigation firm to trace Person M’s contact details. The investigators provided a likely address and telephone number within hours. and between 18 and 21 July 2022, Mr Wood continued to contact Person M, including asking her to confirm a telephone number obtained from another source. Person M maintained her refusal, stating that the court had confirmed she was not required to disclose her details.
On 18 July 2022, notwithstanding her objections, Mr Wood disclosed the traced contact details to his client, Person B. In November Wood’s conduct was reported to the SRA by person M, triggering the investigation
The allegations centred on two key areas of misconduct: first, that Mr Wood repeatedly sought to pressure Person M, who was unrepresented, into providing her address and telephone number despite her clear refusal; and second, that he instructed a private investigator to obtain those details and subsequently disclosed them to his client outside court processes. The SDT concluded Wood had “fundamentally misjudged” the situation despite his considerable experience in family law.
The Tribunal held that Mr Wood knew, or ought to have known, that Person M did not wish to share the information, had no legal duty to do so, and that the information was not required to progress his client’s case. In continuing to press the issue, he was found to have taken unfair advantage of a litigant in person, in breach of Principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Conduct. Importantly, the Tribunal noted that Wood himself had identified the correct procedural route, seeking a court order, but chose not to follow it.
The second and more serious aspect of misconduct arose from Wood’s decision to instruct a tracing agent who provided him with Person M’s likely address and phone number the same day before he disclosed those details to his client shortly thereafter.
The SDT emphasised that the Family Procedure Rules expressly allow parties in children proceedings to withhold contact details unless ordered by the court, reflecting the safeguarding risks often present in such cases. By obtaining the information outside that framework and disclosing it without consent, Wood was found to have knowingly circumvented procedural safeguards. The Tribunal rejected his justification that he was acting in his client’s Article 8 interests, holding that such considerations did not entitle a solicitor to override established protections.
In arriving at its decision the SDT accepted that Wood was motivated by a desire to advance his client’s interests and had an otherwise unblemished 44-year career, it found his conduct demonstrated a loss of objectivity and a failure to adhere to core professional standards. The misconduct was assessed within Level 3 of the indicative fine band, resulting in a £17,500 penalty alongside costs of £15,000.
