John Enright
Employee
7266388

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 29 April 2026

Published date: 12 May 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: TLT LLP

Address(es): Eden Building, Irwell Street, Salford, M3 5EN

Firm ID: 598965

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

John Enright (‘Mr Enright’), a former employee of TLT LLP (‘the Firm’), a recognised body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

2. to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a section 43 order) in relation to Mr Enright that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with their practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.
3. to the publication of this agreement
4. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300

Reasons/basis

Mr Enright is a non-solicitor who was employed by the Firm as a facilities assistant in the business services department of its Manchester offices between 7 January 2019 and 3 July 2024.

The employment contract signed by Mr Enright states that: 'The firm provides legal services and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The firm expects the highest standards of honesty and conduct from you when carrying out your duties.'

We investigated a report from the Firm about the conduct of Mr Enright towards some of its junior, female employees ('the Employees') who worked at its Manchester offices. The Employees were not people with whom Mr Enright worked during the normal course of his contracted duties.

The investigation established that between 1 February 2024 and 24 April 2024, while carrying out his duties at the Firm's offices, Mr Enright had:

1. identified and selected the Employees based upon a visual assessment of them in the workplace
2. obtained items of an inappropriate nature ('the Items') for the Employees
3. purported the Items to have been supplied to him free of charge when they had been procured at his own expense expressly to give to the Employees
4. contacted the Employees via the Firm's internal messaging system and sent them inappropriate and unwanted messages.

The Employees felt increasingly uncomfortable as a result of the behaviour. Initially each felt reluctant to report Mr Enright's conduct.

This was because independently they experienced feelings such as isolation, intimidation and/or concern for the potential impact such reports could have upon their career prospects and reputations given their relatively junior status within the Firm.

Once reported, there emerged a clear pattern of sexually motivated conduct by Mr Enright which was targeted at a particular type of employee.

When confronted by the Firm, Mr Enright initially denied obtaining the Items at his own expense. Only when later presented with evidence seized from his workstation did Mr Enright admit that the nature of both the Items and offered and/or given and of his messages was inappropriate.

Mr Enright agrees, and the SRA accepts, that his conduct towards the Employees between 1 February 2024 and 24 April 2024 while carrying out the role of a facilities assistant at the Firm means that it is undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without the SRA's prior permission.

The SRA's Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates non-authorised persons, sets out its approach to using section 43 orders to control where a non-authorised person can work.

When considering whether a section 43 order is appropriate in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Enright.

The SRA and Mr Enright agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

1. Mr Enright is not a solicitor
2. his employment or remuneration at the Firm means that he was involved in a legal practice
3. by virtue of the misconduct admitted in paragraph 3.1 above, Mr Enright has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice. Mr Enright's conduct in relation to that act or default makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

Mr Enright's conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because it:

1. involved a clear and calculated pattern of behaviour
2. involved a series of acts over a period of time and was not an isolated incident
3. targeted people in the firm who were junior in status and female
4. had a negative impact upon those targeted in that it made them feel vulnerable and/or uncomfortable
5. was sexually motivated
6. was considered by Mr Enright as an alternative outlet to his previous problems with alcohol addiction
7. involved a lack of integrity which was demonstrated when Mr Enright initially denied the conduct to the Firm
8. undermines public trust and confidence in solicitors and in the provision of legal services when individuals fail to act with integrity and in a way that supports equality, diversity and inclusion.

The SRA's Enforcement Strategy explains that certain types of allegations, such as sexual misconduct, are inherently more serious than others. It also explains that an assessment of any future risk will look forward as well as back. For the reasons outlined at 4.4 to the SRA considers there to be a risk that the behaviour and/or conduct could be repeated by Mr Enright in similar circumstances.