Jessica Sayer
Employee
833905

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 12 December 2025

Published date: 17 December 2025

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Kidd & Spoor Solicitors Limited

Address(es): 7 Marden Road, Whitley Bay, NE26 2JN

Firm ID: 621474

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Jessica Kate Sayer ('Ms Sayer') a former employee of Kidd & Spoor Solicitors Limited (the 'Firm'), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority ('SRA'):

1. from the date of this agreement, she is disqualified under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007 from:
   1. acting as Head of Legal Practice of any licensed body
   2. acting as Head of Finance and Administration of any licensed body
   3. being a manager of any licensed body
   4. being employed by any licensed body
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. to pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

1.2 In this agreement the term 'licensed body' means a body which holds a licence in force under Part 5 of the Legal Services Act

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Ms Sayer was employed as a Paralegal at the Firm, from 17 January 2022 until 23 October 2024. She worked in the private client department at the Firm and was responsible for managing a number of private client files.

Client A

2.2 In January 2024, Ms Sayer was instructed by Client A in the administration of an estate. Ms Sayer was instructed to calculate and pay the inheritance tax (IHT), communicating with the banks and life assurance companies, preparing probate forms, closing accounts, selling properties and distributing funds.

2.3 In April 2024, Ms Sayer made an application for grant of probate to the Probate Registry but mistakenly attached a copy of the will rather than the original. On 5 July 2024, Client A chased Ms Sayer for an update who stated she had spoken to the Probate Registry and hoped the application would be granted imminently. On 16 July 2024, Ms Sayer spoke with the Probate Registry, and they confirmed they required sight of the original will.

2.4 Ms Sayer received a further email from Client A on 18 July 2024, voicing concerns over the delay and whether a complaint to Probate Registry was possible. On 22 July 2024, Ms Sayer responded stating probate had still not arrived and that she had enquired with her supervisor about making a complaint to the Probate Registry.

2.5 Ms Sayer's supervisor has confirmed that Ms Sayer did not raise the issue of making a complaint to the Probate Registry at any time on this file. Further, Ms Sayer was aware that the application was delayed because the Probate Registry required sight of the original will but she failed to inform Client A about the true position of the file and instead misled the client by stating the delay was due to a backlog at the Probate Registry.

Client B

2.6 Around January 2024, Ms Sayer was instructed to deal with the administration of the estate on behalf of the executors, Client B. Her instructions included obtaining evaluations, preparing and submitting IHT forms, cashing assets and distributing funds to the beneficiaries.

2.7 Following a complaint from Client B in October 2024, it was discovered Ms Sayer had informed the executors that she had submitted the IHT forms, obtained the code from HMRC, paid the IHT due and applied for the grant of probate despite not having completed any of this work. Ms Sayer therefore misled Client B about the true state of their file.

Client C

2.8 Ms Sayer was instructed by Client C on 19 April 2023 to deal with the grant of letters of administration. Ms Sayer sent a number of emails which purported to provide updates to Client C about the progress of this matter. On 26 September 2023, Ms Sayer advised Client C that the application had been submitted but was subject to delays.

2.9 On 19 March 2024, Ms Sayer stated she had received notification that the application had been granted but was waiting to receive the official sealed copies. It was later discovered that the application has not been submitted until July 2024. Ms Sayer therefore misled Client C on 26 September 2023 and 19 March 2024.

3. Admissions

3.1 Ms Sayer makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. On 22 July 2024, she misled Client A by stating that probate had not arrived and that she had discussed making a complaint to the Probate Registry with her supervisor when no such discussion had taken place. In doing so she breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles.
2. Between January 2024 and October 2024, she misled the executors, Client B, by telling them she had submitted the IHT forms, obtained the code from HMRC, paid the IHT due and that the grant of probate would be issued around eight weeks later when in fact no such work had been undertaken. Her conduct breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles.
3. On 26 September 2023, she misled Client C by stating that the application for letters of administration had been submitted but was subject to delays. At this stage no application had been submitted, and therefore Ms Sayer's conduct breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles.
4. On 19 March 2023, she further misled Client C by stating that she had received notification that probate had been granted, when no application had been submitted. In doing so she breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles.

3.2 Ms Sayer agrees, and the SRA accepts, that her conduct means that it is undesirable for her to be engaged in the activities referred to in section 1.1 (a) (i-iv).

4. Why a section 99 disqualification is appropriate

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates non-authorised persons, sets out its approach on how disqualification decisions are made.

4.2 Ms Sayer and the SRA agree that a disqualification is appropriate because:

1. The Firm is a licensed body
2. Ms Sayer has breached the rules as described in paragraph 3 above which, by virtue of section 176 Legal Services Act 2007 ('LSA'), applied to her
3. The conditions in rule 5 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules ('RDPRs') are met, in that:
   1. It is undesirable for Ms Sayer to engage in the activities listed in paragraph 1.1(a) of this agreement, and
   2. Disqualification is a proportionate outcome in the public interest because it will prevent Ms Sayer from undertaking a similar role at another firm and helps maintain public trust in the profession.

4.3 It is undesirable for Ms Sayer to engage in the activities listed at paragraph 1.1(a) (i-iv) of this agreement, for the following reasons:

1. The nature of Ms Sayer's conduct was dishonest which means that it would be undesirable for Ms Sayer to work at a licensed body or an authorised body.
2. Ms Sayer's conduct demonstrated that she acted with a lack of integrity and displayed a reckless disregard for the risk of harm and her regulatory obligations as an employee of an authorised body.
3. Furthermore, the nature of the conduct undermines the public trust and confidence in Ms Sayer and the profession. The public is entitled to expect that robust action is taken to uphold the standards of the legal profession.

4.4 In deciding that disqualification is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the disqualification criteria in rule 3.1(c) of the RDPRs and the following mitigation which Ms Sayer has put forward:

1. Ms Sayer has shown remorse for her conduct.
2. She has fully co-operated with the SRA investigation and has made early admissions.
3. Ms Sayer has provided personal mitigation and has since undertaken steps to address her behaviour.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA will publish this decision. This is a requirement of the Legal Services Board's rules. We must publish information on enforcement action or sanctions imposed against a licensed body or manager or employee of a licensed body.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Ms Sayer agrees that she will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7. Costs

7.1 Ms Sayer agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.