Susan Mary Carpenter
Solicitor
312933

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 20 July 2026

Published date: 21 July 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Powell & Co

Address(es): 9-11 Coleshill Street, Sutton Coldfield, B72 1SD

Firm ID: 76565

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Susan Mary Carpenter ('Ms Carpenter') a solicitor of Powell & Co (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 £600.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 Ms Carpenter was instructed on 26 May 2022 by executors A and B ('the executors') to act in the administration of their mother's estate.

2.2 The estate included a property ('the property') which was occupied by executor B and their family.

2.3 During the administration of the estate, a dispute arose about the property between executor A as a beneficiary of the estate and executor B as the occupant of the property. The executors' respective interests then conflicted, and they were no longer aligned in their duties as executors to administer the estate.

2.4 As a result of the dispute, Ms Carpenter's duty to act in the best interests of the executors became conflicted.

2.5 However, Ms Carpenter continued to act for executor A and executor B.

2.6 On 11 February 2025 Ms Carpenter sent a letter to executor B demanding they vacate the property.

2.7 The content of that letter went beyond what would be considered appropriate professional communication as it was derogatory and personal in tone, inappropriate in a solicitor-client relationship and likely to cause, and did indeed cause, distress to the recipient.

3. Admissions

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

2. That by continuing to act for both executors in the estate when a dispute arose, she acted in a matter where there was a conflict of interest, or a significant risk of such a conflict, and in doing so breached paragraph 6.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs.
3. That by continuing to act for both executors in the estate when a dispute arose, she failed to act in her clients' best interests, and in doing so breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles.
4. That by sending the letter dated 11 February 2025, Ms Carpenter failed to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services, and in doing so breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.
5. That by sending the letter dated 11 February 2025, Ms Carpenter failed to act with independence, and in doing so breached Principle 3 of the SRA Principles.
6. That by sending the letter dated 11 February 2025, Ms Carpenter failed to act in her client's best interests, and in doing so breached Principle 7 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 Carpenter and the following mitigation which she has put forward:

1. There is a low risk of repetition.
2. Ms Carpenter has no adverse regulatory history.
3. Ms Carpenter co-operated with the SRA investigation.

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

1. Ms Carpenter was an experienced solicitor who had direct responsibility for the matter.
2. Ms Carpenter's conduct in sending the letter had a significant impact on executor B.
3. Ms Carpenter's conduct was reckless as to her regulatory obligations.
4. Some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal service.
5. The conduct continued over a period of time despite there being an evident conflict in Ms Carpenter's actions for the executors.
6. Any less serious sanction/outcome would be inappropriate to protect the public/public interest

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 Carpenter agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

6.1 Ms Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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 Carpenter 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.