'Completely unethical' solicitor banned over £25,000 client loan

A law firm owner who took a £25,000 loan from a client to avoid SRA scrutiny has been struck off the roll. 

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Christopher Haddock had drafted a fake agreement to make it seem like the money was for fees. This purported agreement was ‘completely fictitious’ and carried out when Haddock was aware there was a forensic investigation into him by the SRA.

Haddock, now 72, had blamed his client and the client’s wife by accusing them of fabricating their accounts, but this submission was rejected by the tribunal, which said the solicitor’s evidence was ‘incapable of belief’.

The tribunal heard that Haddock, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2000 and ran his own practice in Halifax, had come to the attention of the SRA in 2018 following a complaint by Andrew Bell.

Bell had instructed Haddock to act for him and his neighbours in an ongoing land dispute and later a criminal case. The SRA submitted that Haddock had come to regard his client as a close friend who had noticed some paperwork relating to the firm’s debt and offered to loan him some money, paid into the client account. The firm had been close to its overdraft limit of £110,000 at the time.

An agreement signed by the pair was designed to give the impression the £25,000 was money on account, with four bill entries recorded on Bell’s ledger for £22,000.

After the civil dispute ended, Bell and his wife attended a meeting at Haddock’s office and she secretly recorded their conversation, in which there were several references to a loan.

The SRA put it to Haddock that he had his client ‘over a barrel’ as he was holding his £25,000 pending the outcome of his legal matters. The agreement was a ‘woolly attempt’ to account for the money when the SRA started investigating and the recording of the meeting showed this had been a loan.

Haddock claimed the references to a loan at the meeting were ‘a bit of theatre’ for Mrs Bell’s benefit. He conceded the accounting scenario was ‘a shade shambolic’ but said his client had pressurised him and imposed on him over what he called a ‘loose arrangement’ over money.

The tribunal said this was a clear conflict of interest which was entirely the result of Haddock putting his own interests and that of the firm ahead of Bell’s. It was ‘completely unethical’ to accept the loan and he had known this was a breach of accounts rules.

Haddock was struck off with no order for costs, given his financial position.