Solicitor struck off for procuring payments from 'vulnerable' 83-year-old

A solicitor who obtained money he was not entitled to from a ‘vulnerable’ 83-year-old woman after he paid two visits to her home has been struck off the roll.

Robert Steven Callen’s misconduct was described as ‘disgraceful behaviour capable of shattering the trust the public place in solicitors to protect their interests’ by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Callen, admitted in 1984, retired from practice at the end of 2017 and no longer holds a practising certificate.

He was alleged to have, in 2018 whilst a solicitor, procured payments by cheque from a client, referred to as VHJ, of his former employer Penman Sedgwick LLP and in doing so acted dishonestly. Callen admitted the allegation and that his conduct was dishonest.

VHJ was 81 when she was injured in a road traffic accident which left her requiring help with day-to-day activities. She instructed the firm to act in a personal injury claim. Callen, as a consultant at the firm, had conduct of her claim. She also appointed Callen as her attorney due to her health condition.

After Callen left the firm, he visited VHJ at her home and told her she owed him £15,000 for the work he had done. He did not provide details of the work or provide a written bill and VHJ refused to pay.

Callen visited again days later and asked for payment of £15,000 and this time, NHJ agreed. She handed her chequebook to Callen who wrote out three cheques which VHJ, by then 83, signed and gave to him.

The cheques were payable to three people known to Callen; two totalling £10,000 were cashed overnight. VHJ later contacted Callen to demand the return of her money and Callen posted a cheque for £10,000 through VHJ’s door which she paid into her account.

The tribunal ‘noted that Mr Callen admitted all the allegations against him including dishonesty and lack of integrity’.

It added: ‘However, this was misconduct of the most egregious kind in which he had obtained money, to which he was not entitled, from a woman vulnerable by reason of her age and infirmity.’ It said Callen’s mitigation did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The SDT ordered that Callen be struck off and pay costs of £2,574.