Helen Therese Freely
Solicitor
336277

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 4 December 2025

Published date: 10 December 2025

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Druces LLP

Address(es): 6th Floor, 99 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7NG, England

Firm ID: 487134

Firm or organisation at date of publication

Name: Branch Austin McCormick LLP

Address(es): 32 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HD, England

Firm ID: 812138

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Helen Therese Freely, a solicitor formerly of Druces LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. she is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. she will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 The deceased had died on 17 July 2022. His widow who has dementia had been living in a care home with the county council meeting some of the fees. The executors, who were the deceased’s adult children, also represented their mother’s interest under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).

2.2 On 16 September 2024 a trainee at the Firm working under Ms Freely’s supervision, emailed the executors a draft Deed and a retainer to be signed.

2.3 On 1 October 2024 when asked by the trainee regarding the dating of the Deed, Ms Freely replied, “I think the best date to date the agreement is a year after the death. The reason I say that is because this is when it should have been done, within the executors’ year of administration. Do just check with the clients that they are content for us to date it that date.”

2.4 At 16:53 hours that day the trainee emailed Ms Freely, “are you happy for me to date it, scan it in and confirm with them that it has been completed?” At 16:54 hours that day Ms Freely replied by email, “Yes, that’s fine”.

2.5 On the same day the executors confirmed by email they were happy to date the Deed 17 July 2023.

2.6 On 2 October 2024 the trainee emailed the executors to confirm that the Deed had now been dated as agreed providing a copy of the completed Deed.

3. Admissions

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

1. By instructing a trainee to backdate a Deed, she has breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Ms Freely and the following mitigation which she has put forward:

1. Her genuine belief was that it was proper and acceptable to insert the date of 17 July 2023 on the Deed, even though it was signed by her clients in October 2024. She made an error of judgment.
2. She obtained her clients’ informed and written consent for entering the earlier date.
3. The intention was not to mislead, disguise, or conceal the true chronology of events, nor to create a false impression as to when the loan arrangement was actually signed or came into effect.
4. She recognises that the more appropriate course of action would have been to date the document contemporaneously with execution in October 2024, while explaining, either in a recital or covering correspondence that the agreement was intended to take effect as of July 2023 or upon the death of the deceased.
5. There is no evidence of dishonesty on her part.
6. Neither Ms Freely nor her clients stood to benefit from the backdating.

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. The conduct showed a disregard for regulatory obligations.
2. The backdating was done with no intention to deceive or mislead, and there is no evidence of dishonesty.
3. There was no intention to cause harm to any party.
4. No harm was caused.
5. There is a very low risk of repetition.
6. Some public sanction is required to uphold confidence in the delivery of legal services.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Ms Freely agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

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

6.2 If Ms Freely denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Ms Freely agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.