SRA branded me a liar
The failings of the Solicitor Regulation Authority extend beyond its handling of disciplinary matters.
In 2021, I had the misfortune to work at a small firm subject to intervention. Inevitably, the intervention took place at extremely short notice and I could not remove my personal belongings. It was agreed with the intervention agent that these things could remain in situ until a later date provided they were clearly marked as personal property. In the circumstances, I was horrified on my return to discover that a box of personal items such as paperweights had been removed. It took several weeks for the SRA to find and return that box.
Also removed was a file of papers from 2000 relating to subsidence damage at my partner’s flat. This had been with my personal items and was not a file relating to the business of the firm. My partner made a request for the return of these papers and the correspondence file relating to an estate where he had been the administrator/sole beneficiary. The SRA denied ever having either file, despite having returned the documents file relating to the estate.
A formal complaint was then made, with the same result and the suggestion from the SRA that the files had never been in the office at all – a nonsense, since they had returned part of the estate file and both parts would have been together. Effectively, the SRA was indirectly branding me a liar for stating these items had been in the building at the time of the intervention.
The loss, by the SRA, of the subsidence papers will cause difficulties as and when my partner sells his flat. The loss of the estate correspondence caused difficulties with his personal tax affairs.
Having made an unsuccessful formal complaint, it seems there is no other avenue to hold the SRA to account for its deficiencies. It is more than time for a serious shakeup.
Helen Whiteley
Bushey, Herts
AML juggernaut creating mayhem
My firm is routinely instructed to deal in probate reseal work and estate administration both to and from Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand.
Until recently, I have never had any difficulty arranging to sell shares belonging to an overseas deceased estate in the course of an estate administration. Until now, all that has been necessary was the production of an English grant or reseal, executor ID and proof of our authority to sell the shares on behalf of the estate. It was always relatively easy to use the share registrar’s share sale service, or to appoint a firm of stockbrokers, to carry out the sales.
Lately, however, I have drawn a complete blank on finding a single UK institution willing to provide a share sale service to deal with UK-listed shares belonging to Australian deceased estates that I represent. This is despite the fact that England and Wales share the same common law jurisprudence with Australia and other Commonwealth countries, and the fact that there has long been a statutory mechanism operating between this country and the Australian state jurisdictions which allows for mutual recognition of probates between the English courts and corresponding Australian state courts.
In two recent instances, I have contacted banks, share registrars and brokerage firms to see if any would agree to sell the shares of an Australian estate, but none were willing to undertake this task. The share registrars are perfectly happy to sell the shares where an estate is domiciled in the UK or the EU, but not when domiciled in a Commonwealth country. This is notwithstanding that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, that England enjoys very similar common law jurisprudence with Australia, that there exists mutual recognition of probates between Commonwealth countries as referred to above, and that EU countries all without exception, so far as I am aware, apply civil/Roman law, which is at odds with the common law.
When enquiring as to why these financial institutions will no longer provide a share sale service that is available to executors based in the UK or EU, the repeated refrain I hear is that increased AML regulatory rules have increased compliance costs to such an extent that it is simply no longer worth their while taking on share sales for non-UK or non-EU domiciled estates. But surely the same AML compliance issues arise for EU-based estates. Where is the logic in this?
Put simply, the bureaucratic AML juggernaut appears to have killed off a lucrative source of business for UK financial institutions and brokerage firms, and created mayhem for foreign executors and their legal representatives when trying to deal with elemental, legal and essential estate administration work. In short, there does not seem to be any way around this log-jam.
Is there anyone out there who knows of a UK financial or other institution that is willing to provide a share sale service of the kind I am seeking?
David G V Hudson
Hudson & Co Solicitors, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
Are lawyers needed?
I read your article on Vince v Vince (7 February). As a recently retired solicitor, having practised family law for 40 years, this was not the first time I have heard the call to use alternative methods to resolve financial disputes and avoid the court process.
Ironically, in my experience, one factor in clients choosing to invoke the court process early on was the fact that the court process took so long.
A client considering alternative methods would be left confronting the reality that, if those failed, the court process would have to be utilised in any event, with the starting gun having been fired much later in the whole undertaking, thereby lengthening it even further.
That is not to say that, once commenced, the court process would automatically lock out alternative routes to settlement. Indeed, many initial steps in the court process are duplicated in the alternative routes, particularly disclosure.
Moreover, the use of alternative methods also relies on vehicles for such resolution being available. This is not always the case in many parts of the country.
Rather than avoiding the court process altogether, should not the emphasis be on resolving the court backlogs and attending to the adversarial nature of the proceedings?
It seems odd that lawyers should be advocating the non-use of a court process. This route will eventually take the profession to a place where the question will be asked: ‘Are lawyers needed at all?’
Andre D’Ambra
Swansea
No comments yet