Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Solicitors Regulation Authority: interventions

Pritesh Vallabhdas Soni
On 15 July 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor within Soni & Co, who practised at 4-5 Inverness Mews, Bayswater, London W2 3JQ, on the grounds that the panel had reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Soni.

Mr Soni was in partnership with Miss Nasreen Kherdin, who is based at the Soni & Co office at 381 Eastern Avenue, Gants Hill, Ilford IG2 6LR. Miss Khedin and the Soni & Co office at Gants Hill are not subject to the intervention.

James Dunn of Devonshires, Salisbury House, London Wall, London EC2 5QY, tel: 0207 628 7576, DX: 33856 Finsbury Square, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

Hossein Gharaie
On 28 July 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor who practised at 402 Edgware Road, London W2 1ED, on the grounds that Mr Gharaie had failed to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, and that he had failed to comply with a condition imposed on his current practising certificate.

Guy Osborn of Osbornes, Livery House, 9 Pratt Street, London NW1 0AE, tel: 020 7485 8811, DX: 57053 Camden Town, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

Alan Vincent Farnell
On 1 August 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, who practised at 12 Lidgett Lane, Dinnington, Sheffield SO25 2QD, on the grounds that the panel was satisfied that:

1. There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Farnell;

2. Mr Farnell had failed to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007;

3. Mr Farnell had entered into an arrangement with his creditors; and

4. Mr Farnell had failed to comply with a condition of approved employment/partnership imposed on his current practising certificate.

John Owen of Gordons, 14 Piccadilly, Bradford BD1 3LX, tel: 01274 202202, DX: 11716 Bradford, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

Pauline Lesley Butler
On 19 August 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, who practised at 14 Lowther Street, Carlisle CA3 8DA, on the grounds that the panel was satisfied that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mrs Butler.

John Wood of Blackett Hart & Pratt, Kepier House, Belmont Business Park, Belmont, Durham DH1 1TW, tel: 0191 384 0840, DX: 60209 Durham, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

John Gordon Underwood
On 22 August 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, on the grounds of a reason to suspect dishonesty and breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998.

By virtue of section 91(2) of the Courts & Legal Services Act 1990, the practising certificate of Mr Underwood, who practised at John G Underwood, 73 Pimlico Road, London SW1W 8NE, has been suspended with immediate effect.

Simon Loveday of Vizards Wyeth, Asia House, 31-33 Lime Street, London EC3M 7HT, tel: 0207 400 9999, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent. The first date of attendance at the subject solicitor’s practice was 27 August 2008.

Fiona Margaret Swainston
On 9 July 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, on the grounds that Mrs Swainston, who was formerly at Rua 5 De Outubro 174, 8135-101 Almancil, Algarve, Portugal, had been indefinitely suspended from practise by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 15 January 2008.

There was no attendance at the practice premises. However, with the co-operation of Mrs Swainston the practice papers were remitted to the intervention agent and were received
by him on 9 September 2008.

John Weaver of Russell-Cooke, 2 Putney Hill, Putney, London, tel: 0208 789 9111, DX 59456 Putney, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

Geoffrey Posner
On 10 September 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, who practised at 32 High Street, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex CM0 8AA, on the grounds that he is incapacitated by age and has abandoned his former practice.

David Redfern of Stanley Tee LLP, 6 High Street, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire CM23 2LU, tel: 01279 755 200, has been appointed to act as the Law Society’s agent. The date of the first attendance at the intervened solicitor’s practice was 11 September 2008.

Malcolm Stewart Graham
On 29 August 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practice of the above-named solicitor, on the grounds of a reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Graham in connection with his practice as a solicitor practising as SFM Legal Services Limited under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of part 1 of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 as amended. The panel further resolved that it was satisfied that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of an officer or employee in connection with the business of SFM Legal Services Limited, which had offices at Alexander House, Kingsway North, Team Valley Trading Estate, Gateshead NE11 OJH, and at 5 Defender Court, Hylton, Riverside, Sunderland SR5 3PE. The panel was accordingly satisfied that grounds for intervention exist under paragraph 32(1)(d) of schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

John Wood of Blackett Hart & Pratt, Kepier House, Belmont Business Park, Durham DH1 1TW, tel: 0191 384 0840, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent.

The first date of attendance at the subject solicitor’s practice was 29 August 2008. However, the intervention agent did not take possession of the practice papers until 1 September 2008.

By virtue of section 91(2) of the Courts & Legal Services Act 1990, Mr Graham’s practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.

Ambrose Emeana and Anengiyefa Alagoa
On 19 August 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in the practices of Ambrose Emeana and Anengiyefa Alagoa, who practised at Suite 3 Tarmay House, 146-150 St Albans Road, Watford, Herts WD24 4FS, and Suite 2, Arkleigh Mansions, 200 Brent Street, London NW4 1BJ, under the firm names Ross Kingsley & Co and Crown Legal Solicitors.

John Gould of Russell-Cooke, 2 Putney Hill, Putney, London SW15 6AB, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent, and he took possession of all Ross Kingsley & Co practice papers on 28 August 2008. Practice papers in relation to Crown Legal Solicitors were uplifted on 29 August 2008.

Pursuant to the intervention, Mr Emeana and Mr Alagoa’s practising certificates have been suspended with immediate effect.

Roger William Guest
On 11 September 2008, the professional regulation adjudication panel of the SRA resolved to intervene in Mr Guest’s practice at 10a Market Place, Sleaford, Lincolnshire NG34 7SR, on the grounds that the panel were satisfied that Mr Guest was incapacitated by illness to such an extent as to be unable to attend to his practice.

Marion Vesey of Shacklocks, Peters House, Bridge Street, Mansfield NG18 1AL, tel: 01623 626141, DX 10352 Mansfield, has been appointed to act as the SRA’s agent. The first date of attendance at the subject solicitor’s practice was 15 September 2008.

Decisions

Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal) include:

Anthony William Elliott

• Application 9661-2007
• Admitted 1976
• Hearing 12 July 2007
• Reasons 2 March 2008

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll for unbefitting conduct. The respondent had been convicted of seven offences contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 of taking indecent photographs of children; he had been convicted of four offences contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to take indecent photographs of children; he had been convicted of three offences contrary to section 160(1)(2A) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of possessing indecent photographs of children; and he had been convicted of one offence contrary to section 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 of making indecent photographs of a child. On 27 September 2006 the respondent was made the subject of a 36-month community rehabilitation order. He was required to remain on the sex offenders register for a period of five years. The SDT had given very careful thought to the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the respondent. It acknowledged that he had pleaded guilty to criminal offences and had received an appropriate punishment from the magistrates’ court.

It was a sad case. The respondent had given long and valued service as a solicitor. The SDT had taken into account the references written in support of the respondent which spoke highly of his professional competence and integrity. The SDT had had the opportunity of reading a confidential pre-sentence report prepared by the National Probation Service and had taken full note of it. The SDT did not consider that the respondent would be a danger to the public while acting as a solicitor, in particular as the field of law in which he had considerable expertise was not one in which he would come into contact with children. However, it was deeply concerned about the public’s perception of the solicitors’ profession. It recognised that, while it was extremely hard on the individual in the present case, it had to fulfil its duty to protect the good reputation of the profession and the public’s perception of it. It was noteworthy that the author of the pre-sentence report had explained to the respondent that children and/or adults were likely to be deeply distressed when they learned that intimate photographs had been taken of them without their consent and subsequently used to facilitate another’s sexual pleasure. The SDT concluded that allowing a member of the solicitors’ profession to continue as a member of that profession having admitted the offences, which the respondent had admitted, would serve seriously to damage the good reputation of the solicitors’ profession in the eyes of the public. The respondent was ordered to pay £644 costs.

Desmond James Corlis and Laurence Andrew George Ferrigan

• Application 9660-2007
• Hearing 22 January 2008
• Reasons 12 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the first respondent, of 41 Scotland Road, Buckhurst Hill, Essex IG9 5NP (admitted 1994), should be suspended from practice for the period of nine months to commence on 22 January 2008; and that the second respondent (admitted 1988), of 75 Ashurst Road, Finchley, London N12 9AU, should be suspended from practice for the period of one year to commence on 22 January 2008.

The SDT further ordered that, if at the end of those fixed periods of suspension the outstanding accountant’s reports in respect of the CFB Partnership had not been filed with the Law Society, the respondents should be suspended until the outstanding accounts had been filed.

The respondents had been guilty of unbefitting conduct and/or in breach of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) in that they had failed, within the time permitted, to file accountant’s reports in respect of the CFB Partnership for the periods ending 5 April 2005, 5 October 2005, 5 April 2006 and 5 October 2006, contrary to section 34 of the act. They had further been guilty of conduct unbefitting and/or, where stipulated, in breach of the rules and regulations specified hereafter, in each of the following respects: as members of CFB Legal Limited Liability Partnership they failed to apply for recognition as a recognised body in breach of rule 3 of the Solicitors Incorporated Practice Rules 2004; as from 29 March 2005, they had practised through CFB Legal Limited Liability Partnership without applying to become a recognised body in breach of rule 7(7) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; between 1 October 2006 and 2 November 2006, they had carried on their practice without taking out and maintaining qualifying insurance in breach of rule 4 of the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2006; the second respondent alone had acted in breach of a condition attached to his practising certificate; the second respondent alone had acted in a way which had compromised and/or impaired his duty to act in the best interests of his client contrary to rule 1(c) of the 1990 rules; the second respondent alone had acted in a way which had compromised and/or impaired the proper standard of work to be expected from a solicitor contrary to rule 1(e) of the 1990 rules; the second respondent alone had signed a client account cheque in favour of HM Revenue & Customs when there were insufficient funds in client account to enable that cheque to be honoured; they had failed to pay the proper costs of an expert instructed by them on behalf of a client; they had acted in a way which was likely to compromise or impair their good repute and that of the solicitors’ profession contrary to rule 1(d) of the 1990 rules; and they had failed to respond substantively to correspondence from the Law Society and/or the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The SDT was disappointed to note that the respondents were appearing before it again having previously appeared as recently as November 2005. It considered, however, that some of the matters before the tribunal in 2005 related to matters that had come before the present tribunal. Serious allegations had been substantiated against the respondents. The SDT accepted that there had been some confusion on the part of the respondents in relation to the need to seek recognition of their status as a limited liability partnership. While that was no excuse, it also accepted that this had led to some confusion in relation to the professional indemnity insurance in the minds of the respondents. The SDT had continuing concerns in respect of the filing of the outstanding accountant’s reports. Its order would reflect its concern that that matter be resolved before the respondents be allowed to resume practice. The SDT had considered carefully the documentation, the submissions by and on behalf of the parties and the written statement of the first respondent. It noted that no dishonesty was alleged against the respondents. Both had admitted that they had no talent for running the administrative side of a solicitor’s practice. Both had indicated a wish in time to resume work as solicitors. The SDT recommended to the Law Society that conditions be imposed on any future practising certificate which might be granted to the respondents, permitting them to work only in approved employment.

The first respondent was ordered to pay £2,800 costs, and the second respondent £4,200.

Thomas Charles Vincent Grace

• Application 9821-2007
• Admitted 1976
• n Hearing 14 February 2008
• Reasons 7 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Dragons Mount, Hill Top Lane, Chinnor Hill, Chinnor, Oxfordshire OX39 4BH, should be reprimanded. The respondent had failed to obtain indemnity insurance cover from the start of the indemnity year, namely 1 October 2005, contrary to rule 8 of the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2005; had failed to pay an outstanding premium to the assigned risks pool for the period 1 October 2005 to 20 February 2006 within 30 days of such a premium being notified to him, contrary to rule 16; and had practised as a solicitor from 11 December 2006 until 5 March 2007 while he did not hold a valid practising certificate. On the face of it, for a solicitor to practise without professional indemnity insurance and without having a current practising certificate in force, particularly when attending court in the capacity of a solicitor, were extremely serious matters. The SDT had taken into account the respondent’s ready and early admissions, his explanations and his mitigation, as well as giving due weight to the excellent testimonials written in his support. It had also noted that he had put his house in order. In all of the particular circumstances the SDT concluded that the respondent’s shortcomings could be met by a reprimand. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,500 costs.

Michael John Aidan Harris

• Application 9780-2007
• Admitted 1968
• Hearing 19 February 2008
• Reasons 17 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of 2 Angel House Barns, Angel Bank, Bitterley, Ludlow, Shropshire SY8 3HS, should pay a fine of £7,000 for unbefitting conduct. The respondent had failed to cause proper and adequate accounting records to be kept in respect of two client matters with which he was dealing; had failed to act with frankness and good faith towards his employers; had failed to protect the interests of his client; had continued to act in a situation of potential conflict; had failed to give proper written information to his client regarding costs and other matters; and had failed to respond substantively to correspondence from the Law Society/Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The SDT found that the respondent had made serious mistakes but accepted that they were mistakes and not deliberate conduct. It accepted the explanations given by the respondent and considered him to be a truthful person. It concluded that the respondent himself had been the victim of a fraudster. The SDT took into account the respondent’s admissions, his contrition, the fact that the matter had been hanging over his head for a long time and that he had resigned from work, which he had much enjoyed, some nine months before the disciplinary hearing. It accepted his assertion that he had learned a salutary lesson from what had occurred. The respondent was ordered to pay £4,472 costs.

Ian Muir Jewell

• Application 9779-2007
• Admitted 1965
• Hearing 31 January 2008
• Reasons 11 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of 52a Eastgate, Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan CF71 7AB, should be struck off the roll. The respondent had acted contrary to the provisions of practice rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 in compromising his independence and integrity, and the good repute of the solicitors’ profession in the admitted forgery of a signature in relation to the sale of a property, that being an allegation of dishonesty or, alternatively, of extreme recklessness; he had acted in breach of principle 17/01 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (8th Edition) in that he had acted, whether in his professional capacity or otherwise, towards others in a way which was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as a solicitor; and by virtue of the aforementioned had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor.

The SDT found it to be a sad case. It gave the respondent credit for his admissions and took into account his mitigation. However, neither of those matters detracted from the fact that in the SDT’s view a solicitor could not have an honest belief that he could properly forge a third party’s signature on a document, whether that forgery was for the benefit of another or not. Such an action represented misconduct at the most serious end of the scale and would serve to seriously damage the profession’s reputation for probity, integrity and trustworthiness. The SDT had further taken into account the respondent’s unfortunate disciplinary history, in that he had appeared before it on two previous occasions. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,161 costs.

Priyadharshini Nirmala Sudusinghe

• Application 9804-2007
• Admitted 1991
• Hearing 17 January 2008
• Reasons 12 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of 12 Snaresbrook Drive, Stanmore, Middlesex HA7 4QW, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of three years to commence on 17 January 2008. The respondent had improperly pre-dated letters to be sent to a client, in accordance with the requirements of the Legal Services Commission, to an address to which the client had not moved at the time; consequently she had acted in breach of practice rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 in that her actions had compromised or impaired her independence or integrity and had not represented actions in the best interest of the client. By virtue of the aforementioned actions she had been guilty of unbefitting conduct. The SDT had concluded that copy letters had been backdated and placed on the file in order to demonstrate that the Legal Services Commission requirements had been met. That represented a serious state of affairs. The respondent had not acted with the integrity, probity and trustworthiness required of a solicitor. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,140 costs.

John Charles Arnold

• Application 9343-2005
• Admitted 1983
• Hearing 12 February 2008
• Reasons 19 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of 41 Bicester Road, Long Credon, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP18 9BP, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for an indefinite period to commence on 12 February 2008. The respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct in that he had failed to reply to correspondence from the OSS/Law Society between approximately January and September 2004 relating to a complaint by Mr MS in breach of principle 30.04 of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (Eighth Edition); had failed to notify the Law Society of details of his practice address at 13 Castle Street, Reading, contrary to the requirements of section 84(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974; had failed to notify the Law Society of the closure of his practices, Arnolds Solicitors and Dukes Arnold Solicitors, in December 2004, contrary to the requirements of section 84(1) of the act; and, by abandoning his practice without making appropriate arrangements for its closure, had acted contrary to rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990, in particular his actions were likely to compromise or impair his duty to act in the best interests of his clients; and the good repute of the solicitor’s profession. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,004 costs.

Ruth Elaine Butler

• Application 9768-2007
• Admitted 1985
• Hearing 24 January 2008
• Reasons 13 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Sanellan Court, 1 Mapesbury Road, London NW2 4HX, should pay a fine of £500 for unbefitting conduct. The respondent had failed and/or delayed in delivering to the Law Society an accountant’s report in respect of her firm, Ruth Butler & Co, for the period ending 28 February 2006, contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder; and she had failed and/or delayed in delivering to the Solicitors Regulation Authority an accountant’s report in respect of her firm for the period ending 31 August 2007, contrary to section 34 of the act and the rules made thereunder. The SDT had every sympathy for the respondent in her financial position. There had, however, been breaches of the professional rules which all solicitors had to observe and it was right that a sanction be imposed. The SDT was conscious of the fact the respondent was in continuing breach of her obligations in relation to the accountant’s report for the period ending 31 August 2007 and that would have to be rectified.

The SDT noted, however, that the period covered by the outstanding report had been looked at by the investigation officers who had not raised any concerns. In those circumstances the SDT was satisfied that the respondent intended to regularise her position.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed.