A former DWF trainee has been banned, rebuked and ordered to pay costs by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for breach of her employment contract and disclosing confidential information.

The SRA found that former trainee Haley Tansey, based in the firm's Manchester office, "disclosed confidential information and personal data" to a friend "on multiple occasions without the firm's authority" between October 2014 and September 2017.

The regulator further found that Tansey had breached her contract of employment as she "failed to obtain the firm's prior written consent for her to engage in outside businesses and/or employment arrangements".

As part of its decision, the SRA has ordered that no solicitor, employee of a solicitor or recognised body "shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor except in accordance with a [Law] Society permission".

Tansey was first employed by the firm as a paralegal and then as a trainee. The firm dismissed her in September 2017 for gross misconduct "shortly before the end of her training contract".

In December 2018, Tansey brought the matter to the Employment Tribunal, alleging that her dismissal was unfair. Among other things, the former trainee claimed DWF had instructed her "to obtain 'competitive intelligence' during her secondment at [its client] Serco" and "encouraged" her "to divulge…confidential and commercially sensitive information"  belonging to Serco.

She further alleged that she was "instructed by a partner at the firm [Rachel Jones] to provide to the respondent [DWF] a document containing information about Pinsent Masons' employment law services to the client". Pinsents was also at the time advising Serco.

Arguing that she was encouraged by a partner "to communicate by email in such a way as to blur the boundaries between what was legitimate to send out of the office, and what was not", Tansey argued that "her actions were not deliberate and did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct of sufficient seriousness to warrant dismissal".

She also argued that DWF's "handling of the internal procedures was flawed and unfair", according to the tribunal document, and in an email to a senior lawyer at DWF, attacked the firm for subjecting her to "the most inept, amateurish 'investigation' imaginable, clearly conducted by a set of very aggressive and out of their depth DWF employees".

However, finding in favour of DWF, the tribunal ruled that Tansey was "fairly dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct", and that she "was not dismissed on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure". It concluded: "The decision to dismiss summarily fell squarely within the band of reasonable responses."

The regulator gave Tansey a rebuke and ordered her to pay a £2,000 financial penalty. It also ordered her to pay the SRA's costs of £1,350 for investigating this matter.

A DWF spokesperson said in a statement to Legal Week: "We are pleased that the SRA's decision and the judgment of last year's Employment Tribunal are consistent with our own findings and that this matter can now be brought to a close."

Attempts to contact Tansey were not successful.