1 reviews and information for The Johnson Partnership, Doncaster

Home > UK Solicitor > Doncaster > The Johnson Partnership

Mobile phone icon01302360606Email iconEmail
Laptop iconWebsite


The Law Society Accredited - Criminal Litigation

How to find us

Floors 1 -3, 1 St Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN1 1TD

Other branches

Languages spoken Afrikaans, English, French, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish 
Size of firm 4 solicitors

Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


Add review


5 stars   0
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   0

Legal services at this branch

  • Advocacy
  • Benefits and allowances
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Crime - fraud
  • Crime - general
  • Employment
  • Family - general
  • Personal injury

Add review

Filter Reviews


Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website


Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/364822.article?Decision=2016-06-30

Outcome: Rebuke
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
On 7 November 2014, Willem Johan Nico Louw was found guilty of assault by beating at Rotherham Magistrates Court. He was given a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of ?620 and a victim surcharge of ?15.

Mr Louw was found to have:

Acted in breach of Principles 1 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011; and
Failed to achieve Outcomes 10.3 and 10.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
These findings relate to the following misconduct:

Mr Louw failed to uphold the rule of law.
Mr Louw failed to notify the SRA of the conviction.
Mr Louw failed to deal with the SRA in an open, timely and co-operative manner during its investigation of his conduct.
He is currently practising with the Johnson Partnership at Floors 1-3, St Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster, DN1 1TD.

He was issued with a written rebuke and directed to pay costs of ?600.00.

The SRA publishes regulatory decisions when it considers it to be in the public interest. Mr Louw has not made any representations in relation to publication. I have had regard to rule 3.5 and rule 15 of the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules and the criteria in appendix 2. Having considered these I conclude that the rebuke should be published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 3

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.

terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
42755 solicitor reviews

5,367,507 page views