A tribunal has told a solicitor to use his six-month suspension to re-evaluate an approach which was blurring the lines between professional and counselling work.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Mark Ian Williams was a ‘deeply caring individual’ whose vocation was trying to help those accused of sexual offences to address their behaviour.
But he admitted holding client money in his personal bank account and acting in criminal proceedings when he was not authorised to do so.
The tribunal said Williams should be suspended as his approach was an ‘impediment to his professional objectivity’.
‘This would never change unless the respondent re-evaluated everything he did professionally, and in his vocation, to ensure that each was in appropriate balance with the other,’ added the tribunal.
Williams, a solicitor for 33 years, was working as a consultant with Surrey firm Frame Smith after his own practice had closed in 2018. He was retained to attend police stations and had a fee-sharing arrangement for other work he undertook for clients through the firm.
In a private capacity, he also undertook counselling and mentoring work, for which he was personally paid a monthly retainers by some clients. Williams had devised and ran a course which aims to help people to move away from the urges that lead to sexual offending.
His firm ended the consultancy arrangement in 2021 when it found out about the extra work Williams was being paid for.
Williams also accepted he did legal work for two other clients, instructing counsel on one case and being paid £7,200 to cover the cost of an expert’s report that would be used in the defence of the client’s criminal proceedings.
He paid this into his personal bank account. Another expert was used at lesser expense, and Williams retained the balance of the money for about nine months after the conclusion of the criminal case, deducting his own fees during that time. He stated that this retention was an oversight, and the tribunal accepted this was the case.
Williams accepted he ‘blurred the lines’ between his regulated legal work and private practice activities and had given little or no thought to the regulations while he pursued what he thought was best for clients. He presented 41 character references from former clients, legal professionals and others. Asked in cross-examination whether he could change, he said this was possible and that he would think more deeply about his actions in the future.
As well as his suspension he was ordered to pay £5,000 costs.
