A London firm of solicitors has apologised to a court and reported itself to the regulator after a recording was taken of a remote hearing without permission, according to the Law Society Gazette of England and Wales.

In JR Farming Limited v Hewitt, the High Court heard that solicitors involved in a fully remote pre-trial review, London-based Enyo Law LLP, had engaged a firm of transcribers to provide a transcript of the hearing in April.

No permission for streamed hearing

The transcript was not made from the court’s own recording and, instead, the transcribers, Epiq Global, streamed the hearing and took a recording of it.

Judge Davis-White QC explained that no order had been sought from the court for permission for such transcription.

The Gazette says that the court was told at almost 5pm the day before the hearing that a transcriber would be one of the participants. Enyo Law sent the link for the remote hearing to the transcriber.

It was not until the court was told that the transcriber might need a short break that the judge was even aware of their role.

‘Extremely concerned’

The judge said he was “extremely concerned” about the position and reserved the question of what action to take. In a witness statement, Nick Jones, a solicitor and partner of Enyo Law, said he did not realise Epiq would be recording anything.

Epiq stated that it was for its client to obtain all necessary consents or orders from the judge, and that this was clear in its terms and conditions.

According to the Gazette, the court heard that Enyo Law had self-reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, saying that it had reconsidered and recirculated internal guidance within the firm.

Full and frank apology

Jones made an immediate full and frank apology to the court, and the judge took no further action other than to send a copy of his ruling to the SRA.

The judge added: “I should make clear that, by this judgment, I do not intend to indicate what course the SRA should take, and I am certainly not indicating that the breach in this case was not serious.”

He granted retrospective permission for the recording, but warned that others should not expect leniency from the court in future.