A City solicitor who complained about a missing £189,000 bank transfer has been struck off after his claim was found to be false.
James Alexander Howard, admitted in April 2000 and practising at international firm Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP at the time, complained to the Co-operative bank that it had failed to make a transfer of around £189,000 which he had instructed it to do. He involved the Financial Conduct Authority, the financial ombudsman as well as a Telegraph journalist in the claim.
His false complaint was an attempt to avoid telling his partner at the time that he could not afford to buy a property with her.
The bank found no instruction had ever been given and Howard did not have ‘more than minimal balances in his account’: £11.76 in one savings account, £10.04 in another, £31.02 in a joint account, and £1,444.91 in an account of which he was the signatory.
By the time of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, Howard did not hold a practising certificate.
Howard, who appeared without representation and chose not to give evidence, denied all allegations against him. The SDT said it ‘did draw an adverse inference’ from Howard’s decision not to have his account tested in cross-examination.
The 31-page judgment found all allegations proved.
In striking off Howard, the judgment said Howard’s ‘motivation had not been financial gain for himself, but…to deceive’ his then-partner ‘about his financial position’.
When Howard was ‘confronted with the evidence, [he] had sought to blame others’ and the three-person panel found Howard ‘had demonstrated no insight into his actions’. It added: ‘In perpetuating this deceit he had also sought to deceive the bank, the FCA, his firm and the financial ombudsman.’
Howard’s actions had caused significant inconvenience to the bank, the FCA, the ombudsman and the Telegraph, the judgment said. ‘There was significant harm caused to the reputation of the profession in circumstances where a solicitor created an entirely false narrative, involving the falsification and fabrication of numerous documents and sending them to multiple organisations over several months.
‘The misconduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated and taken place over an extended period of time.'
Howard was also ordered to pay £19,700 costs.
