Conveyancing solicitor fined after failing to disclose link to borrower

A solicitor has been fined £12,500 over a conflict of interest and failure to disclose his relationship to the borrower client in conveyancing transactions.

Mark Robert Westwood was also ordered to pay costs of £19,670 the judgment, on an agreed outcome, said.

Westwood was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by legal counsel for Clydesdale Bank, who said a certificate of title, relating to a property it was lending on, had been signed by one of the borrowers which was Westwood. The bank complained this was a breach of instructions, a breach of all normal rules of conveyancing, and a significant conflict of interest.

Between September 2016 and October 2020, while working as a solicitor at Cavendish Legal Group/O’Neill Patient Solicitors, Westwood acted in five conveyancing transactions where there was a conflict of interest of significant risk of an own interest conflict between his lender client and himself. During the same period of time, he failed to disclose to his lender client material information concerning his relationship to his borrower client, who was a relative.

Westwood, a consultant at the firm, admitted the allegations against him but denied a breach of Principle 2 of the 2011 Principles and Principle 5 of the 2019 Principles and denied recklessness in relation to the conflict of interest allegation.

The SRA, which brought the allegations against Westwood, asked to withdraw those denied breaches and aggravating factor, which the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal accepted, finding it was ‘satisfied that it was reasonable and proportionate’ to do so.

The SDT said: ‘The tribunal reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions were properly made. The tribunal considered that the respondent had erred significantly in acting in conveyancing transactions where there were conflicts of interest, with the consequential risk of harm to clients and lenders being an evident danger.’

The judgment acknowledged Westwood’s ‘genuine remorse and insight into his failings’ and that there had been no dishonesty.

Fining Westwood, the SDT said: ‘Considerable steps had been taken by the respondent to address the mistakes he had made and to understand the significance of the lenders’ requirements at the point of instruction. He had attended courses specific to this issue.

‘Considering this remedial action the tribunal was content that the seriousness of the misconduct could be marked by a fine.’

It said the £12,500 fine was ‘proportionate and in the public interest’.