Solicitor caught with child abuse images is banned from legal profession

Former law firm partner James-Guy Jacobs is struck off by Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

A solicitor caught with images of child pornography has been prevented from working in the legal profession.
James-Guy Jacobs, of Dawlish Drive, Pinner, was found guilty at Harrow Crown Court of 10 counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of a child, five counts of taking indecent photographs and one count of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child.
He was sentenced in November 2012 to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for seven years.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) brought the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) that decided to strike Jacobs off the professional register.
In a statement, the SRA said: “Last Monday, February 11, the SDT found that he had failed to uphold the rule of law, acted without integrity and acted in a way which was likely to diminish the trust which the public has in the profession.
“The tribunal noted that Mr Jacobs had committed serious sexual offences involving children and that although he now showed remorse, he had been oblivious to the effect of his behaviour on the children who were the subject of the photographs.
“Mr Jacobs told the tribunal he had been under a great deal of stress, both at home and at work and it was an error of otherwise good judgement. As well as being struck off, he was ordered to pay costs of £1,500.”
Jacobs has 21 days from the publication of the written judgment – which can take up to seven weeks – to appeal the SDT decision.
The 47-year-old had once been residential and commercial property solicitor services at Healys LLP and was a partner in the property department at Fletcher Day, a central London law firm.
A spokesman for Fletcher Day said: “We employed him from August 2013 to January of this year, when he resigned.
“We had no knowledge of his conviction as he did not declare it and we would have never employed him otherwise. We only found out only two weeks before his tribunal hearing date. He came with a glowing reference but he lied throughout to cover his tracks.”
We await a statement from Healys LLP.