In depth: Mesh scandal victims seek compensation after solicitor struck off

Rarely does the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal offer an outspoken moral judgement on the behaviour of a respondent. Its description of Darren Hanison, former sole practitioner with Sussex firm Fortitude Law, as ‘deplorable’ was therefore an indication of how appalled the panel had been with the misconduct laid out before it.

A total of 17 allegations were found proved against Hanison on the basis of his handling of clinical negligence claims brought by victims of the vaginal mesh implants scandal. The mesh was used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth. 

Hanison’s clients were usually women who had been through unimaginable pain due to allegedly botched operations on the NHS, in some cases losing their jobs and their ability to walk. After feeling let down by the medical profession, they suffered again after telling Hanison the most intimate and embarrassing details of their cases. Their claims were under-settled, allowed to drift out of time or not pursued at all. 

Some clients had previously been with a firm called Secure Law, which shut down in 2015 and transferred cases to Fortitude.

The tribunal said Hanison abused the trust of his clients and exploited his position for financial gain. ‘There had been a profound failure to protect his clients’ interests,’ it said. ‘He had taken advantage of trust placed in him. He had, in the most egregious way, abused his position of power and authority.’ 

The tribunal found that in some cases, Hanison’s clients had unwittingly entered into litigation without after-the-event insurance, leaving them vulnerable to massive defence costs bills. The solicitor gave false assurances that cover had been secured and even created policy schedules to maintain this pretence. On closer inspection, insurer policy numbers on these documents could not be traced; the company name appeared as ‘pie’ and not ‘plc’; and the policy paper displayed a company logo which was out of date.

Hanison also settled cases without the consent of clients – sometimes for far lower sums than he had initially pledged to recover. Victims have told the Gazette that court documents post-settlement were never made available, and there was uncertainty about the costs that had been deducted from payments.

‘I had been so relieved to have someone who would take on my case, but this has put me off ever using a lawyer,’ said one woman who did not want to be named. ‘I feel like I can’t trust anyone again.’

As well as being struck off, Hanison was ordered to pay £114,820 in costs.

'Hanison’s clients placed their trust in a legal professional who was supposed to support them through complex medical negligence cases. Instead, they were deceived, manipulated and used for his own gain'

Kath Sansom, Sling The Mesh

Kath Sansom, who runs campaign group Sling the Mesh on behalf of victims, said members felt a mixture of relief and anger this week after it was confirmed Hanison would no longer be allowed to practise.

Sansom said: ‘They placed their trust in a legal professional who was supposed to support them through complex medical negligence cases. Instead, they were deceived, manipulated and used for his own gain. His conduct was not only unethical but a serious and deliberate abuse of power.’

Sansom added that the outcome makes the group’s calls for non-adversarial compensation even more urgent: this was one of the key recommendations in Baroness Cumberlege’s First Do No Harm report in 2022.

Legal proceedings do not end here. Several of Fortitude Law’s former clients are pursuing professional negligence claims against the firm’s professional indemnity insurers (Fortitude was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2023) and there have been talks about pursuing private prosecutions for alleged fraud.

Fortitude Law’s activities have resulted in other court proceedings: the firm’s former litigation funder has brought a claim against Hanison, while the firm’s insurer and litigation funder are involved in ongoing litigation about when an insurer may be joined as a party to underlying liability proceedings. That case is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal later this year.

Hanison has not spoken publicly since the SDT decision. He emailed the tribunal last month to admit the allegations, including dishonesty, and to acknowledge that he had undermined trust in the profession and fallen below the standards expected of solicitors.