GMC lawyers - defence solicitors for doctors

GMC solicitors

Our expertise in this area is wide-ranging and we regularly deal with the full range of fitness to practise cases. You can be assured that whatever issue you face, our team will have experience of dealing with similar issues. Our experience includes dealing with the following matters:

• Serious clinical incidents
• Surgical errors
• Prescribing errors
• Diagnostic errors
• Cosmetic and aesthetic procedures
• Record-keeping
• Financial misconduct, both within and outside of clinical practice
• Dishonesty
• Misconduct during formal investigations
• Sexually-motivated misconduct, relating to both colleagues and patients
• Inappropriate use of social media
• Drug & alcohol dependency
• Impairment on the basis of mental health
• Breaches of agreed undertakings
• Breaches of interim conditions of practice
• Criminal convictions for serious offences

In addition to dealing with GMC investigations and fitness to practise proceedings, we also assist with doctors with applications for registration, specialist registration and sub-speciality recognition.

Case studies

GMC investigations

• Our lawyers acted for a private cosmetic surgeon facing a complaint from a patient. The patient raised wide-ranging allegations about our client’s conduct. Our client maintained that the complaint was vexatious and unfounded. We assisted our client with a number of responses to the GMC and we produced evidence which significantly undermined the complainant’s account. This resulted in the GMC’s Case Examiners closing the investigation with no further action.

• Our lawyers acted for a doctor referred to the GMC in relation to several allegations ranging from poor clinical performance to dishonesty. We made detailed written submissions at the Rule 7 Stage maintaining that there was no realistic prospect of a finding that our client’s fitness to practise was impaired. The case examiners concluded the case with no further action.

• Our solicitors acted for a doctor accused of dishonesty following allegations of submitting inaccurate timesheets. Written submissions were made to the case examiners, dealing with evidential issues and matters concerning our client’s fitness to practise. Following this, the GMC proposed to conclude the case with a warning. Our client did not wish to accept a warning and further written submissions were made. These were accepted by the case examiners and the case was closed with advice.

• We acted for a doctor accused of dishonesty in relation to a number of job applications. It transpired that these issues had arisen following complaints made by one of our client’s former colleagues following a breakdown in their relationship. We carried out a careful analysis of the evidence and we were able to demonstrate that the concerns were unfounded. The GMC’s Case Examiners accepted our submissions and closed the case with no further action.

• Our solicitors acted for a doctor facing investigation following a complaint by a private patient regarding an elective cosmetic procedure. The GMC instructed an expert witness who was highly critical of our client. We made detailed written submissions which challenged the expert's findings. Following this the investigation was closed with no further action.

• Our lawyers represented a doctor facing multiple complaints of financial misconduct and dishonesty. We represented our client at a number of Interim Orders Panel hearings and a meeting at the GMC’s offices to discuss the allegations. Following this, written submissions were made at the Rule 7 stage which resulted in the allegations of dishonesty being withdrawn. The case was concluded with a warning.

• Our lawyers acted for a doctor referred to the GMC following a serious clinical error which contributed to the death of a patient. Our client accepted having made a diagnostic error and made full and frank admissions to the GMC. Detailed written submissions were made at the Rule 7 stage setting out our client’s reflection on the incident and outlining a programme of training which had been completed in order to remediate matters. The case was concluded with a warning.   

• Our solicitors advised a doctor facing investigation following an application for specialist registration. It was alleged that aspects of the application were dishonest. We assisted our client in preparing a detailed response at the outset of the investigation which clarified the issues which had been raised. The investigation was closed by the GMC and no action was taken against our client.

MPTS hearings

• We acted for a GP in a long-running and complex case involving a number of allegations of dishonesty, which were denied by our client. Following a review of the evidence we made submissions about the admissibility of key items of evidence relied upon by the GMC. Those submissions were accepted by the MPTS and the evidence was dismissed, resulting in a number of allegations being withdrawn. Our client gave evidence in relation to another allegation of dishonesty and was found to be a credible witness. The allegation was found not proven and no action was taken against our client’s registration.

• We acted for a consultant who was accused of sexual misconduct by a colleague. The allegations were denied and a hearing took place before the MPTS. Our client had been consistent throughout all stages of the proceedings and was found to be a credible witness. However we were able to highlight a number of inconsistencies in the complainant’s account. The MPTS found the allegations not proved and no action was taken against our client.

• Our solicitors acted for a doctor referred to a fitness to practice hearing before the MPTS facing wide-ranging allegations. These included competence allegations, issues with regard to communications with colleagues and allegations of dishonesty. Some of the allegations were admitted but most were denied. The allegations which were denied were successfully defended at the hearing. This included allegations of dishonesty. Detailed mitigation was presented in relation to those allegations which were admitted. The Tribunal found that our client’s fitness to practise was not impaired and as such no action was taken.

• We acted for a doctor who was referred to the MPTS following a serious clinical incident which occurred during a surgical procedure. Our client admitted the allegations and we presented extensive evidence of reflection and remediation. The Tribunal found that our client’s fitness to practise was not impaired and no action was taken.

• We acted for a doctor who was referred to the MPTS following convictions for a number of serious criminal convictions. Our client admitted that their fitness to practise was currently impaired in light of those convictions and the focus of the hearing was on the question of sanction. Detailed evidence of mitigation and reflection was prepared and provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not make an order of erasure and instead imposed a period of suspension. This suspension was subsequently reviewed by the MPTS and our client was permitted to return to unrestricted practice.

• Our lawyers acted for a doctor pursuing an application for restoration to the Medical Register. Our client had been erased at an earlier hearing following findings of dishonesty. We assisted our client in the preparation of a detailed reflective statement and supporting documents. The Tribunal was satisfied that our client had developed full insight and the application for restoration was granted.

Contact us for further information

If you are under investigation by the General Medical Council or you have been referred to a hearing before the MPTS, please contact our specialist solicitors without delay either by calling us on 0161 696 6250 or by completing our online enquiry form.