A solicitor challenging a Solicitors Regulation Authority fine of less than £8,000 has lost his appeal – and now faces a total bill of more than £30,000 in costs.
James Ramdhun, admitted in 2006, was sanctioned last year after a decision by an SRA adjudicator panel that he authorised and allowed 16 payments worth £37,544 to be made from the proceeds of a property sale. These proceeds had been subject to an undertaking by Ramdhun’s firm, Clapham Law LLP, after the sale of the property owned by its client DN and DN’s ex-wife.
Ramdhun was the firm’s compliance officer and supervising partner for the matter. It was not in dispute that the monies were transferred from the client account and paid to DN to meet his expenses in seeking a court order for dividing the proceeds.
Ramdhun had argued before the panel that the undertaking was invalid due to the lack of a specified monetary amount or expiration date.
The SRA adjudicator had also found that a company owned by Ramdhun loaned DN enough money to repay the sums advanced from the client account. This loan was made with an 8% interest rate. The adjudicator did not find that Ramdhun breached SRA principles of acting with independence or in the best interests of the client.
Ramdhun appealed the panel’s decision before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. He submitted that the SRA failed to understand the purpose of the undertaking and the underlying circumstances. He also submitted that the undertaking was neither binding nor valid.
On the issue of the loan to DN, Ramdhun said he had no choice but to act in the best interests of a ‘desperate’ client. DN had travelled to the UK solely for the purpose of the sale but this was delayed, causing great distress.
The solicitor denied that the money advanced to DN was a loan, and said the client himself had insisted on adding interest as a sign of appreciation. DN had reportedly explained the situation to the SRA, saying he did not need an independent lawyer in this situation. It was also stated that DN’s ex-wife’s financial position was never at risk.
The SRA submitted to the tribunal that the appeal should be dismissed as the panel’s decision was correct on the substantive issues of the undertaking and the loan.
The tribunal said Ramdhun had not shown any basis for disturbing the original decision and not presented any cogent reasons to go behind it. The appeal was dismissed as having no merit.
Following the ruling, the SRA applied for its £16,550 costs in full. It was also disclosed that Ramdhun’s own costs came to £13,500. The tribunal said the SRA’s costs were proportionate and reasonable and it was right that Ramdhun should pay them in full.
