Mr Jet Forthright was acting for Ms Les Fussy, an experienced litigant, in her claim for breach of contract.

The defendant was Mr Cutcost, who had chosen to represent [AY1]himself.

While Ms Fussy was present in his office, Mr Forthright, in an impressive display of his legal acumen, called Mr Cutcost and told him he (Mr Cutcost) was an "unmitigated fool" for representing himself and that Mr Forthright would run rings round him in court. He then unleashed a stream of legal jargon that demonstrated to Ms Fussy that he knew his stuff and that made it clear to Mr Cutcost that he (Mr Cutcost) hadn't the faintest idea what Mr Forthright was talking about! He told Mr Cutcost that the best way to avoid embarrassment was to settle for the full amount right there and then.[AY2]

Although Mr Forthright could not persuade Mr Cutcost to settle, he still felt he had done a good job for his client. Ms Fussy, though, became increasingly concerned when, over a period of five weeks, she could not get to speak to Mr Forthright. Whenever she called him, his secretary said that Mr Forthright would call her back within 24 hours, but he never did. Eventually, she went into the office, insisted on seeing him, and then confronted him. He told her not to fuss about it and that he had already sent her some documents in the post. Two weeks later, the documents had not arrived - and, when challenged, his secretary could not provide any evidence that they had been sent.

Mr Forthright did win the claim in court and said to Ms Fussy that she had no need to worry about it at any point. She, however, was less than impressed with his attitude and the way he had been dismissive of her concerns.

question: From the facts of the scenario, was Mr Forthright guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct? Why/Why not? (7 marks)