A law firm manager handling mortgage mis-selling claims failed to tell insurers that the cases were flawed, a tribunal has found.
Samira Seth, admitted in 2006, had no previous experience of this type of work but accepted instructions from claims management companies on 539 claims, issuing proceedings within three months on 36 cases.
But a Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation found that Seth did not tell clients at the outset that they could use other redress methods such as the Financial Ombudsman Service. In a review of 21 files, none of the client care letters flagged up these other options and there was no evidence that clients were ever told about alternatives to litigation.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal also heard that Seth’s eponymous sole practitioner firm, based in Bolton, signed each client up to a conditional fee agreement and advised them to take up the option of after-the-event insurance to cover costs if claims failed.
The firm sought counsel’s advice on two of the 21 mortgage mis-selling files reviewed by the SRA. In one of those, counsel said there were ‘serious difficulties’ with the claim and set out reasons why it could not be pursued based on the information provided.
Seth was supposed to provide counsel’s opinion to the insurer as soon as possible but instead served proceedings on the case the day after the opinion had been received. It was only after contact from the SRA that the firm sought retrospective consent from the insurer to issue proceedings, but there was no evidence that counsel’s adverse opinion was ever sent to the broker.
In the other case, Seth’s firm was told by counsel that no part of the claim had a reasonable prospect of success. She only provided this adverse opinion to the insurance broker six months after the claim was issued and two months after the opinion was received.
Seth admitted having failed to seek prior approval from insurers to issue claims, putting clients’ ATE policies at risk.
The tribunal said she knew she was in possession of information that insurers would want to be aware of, and she had demonstrated a lack of integrity.
Seth’s lawyers told the SRA she had not intended to mislead anyone and deeply regretted her misconduct, adding that she could ‘only speculate that she was too busy that she did not give the matter her proper attention’. She maintained that issues identified were not widespread and that she had delegated to experienced professionals but failed to ensure effective oversight. She deeply regretted taking on work outside of her expertise.
Seth was fined £7,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs. Her firm entered liquidation last year and was shut down by the SRA. Due to her current financial situation, the costs order can be enforced only with the permission of the tribunal. She was also barred indefinitely from practising as a sole practitioner or sole manager of a law firm, or acting as compliance officer.
