A veteran solicitor who practised before his suspension was up has avoided being permanently struck off the roll. Michael Baker, 70, formerly a partner with now-closed Kent firm Baker McDonald, had been suspended for a year from April 2015 for breaching accounts rules and acting without integrity. Once his suspension was lifted, he was supposed to seek the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s approval to work as a solicitor.
But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Baker practised on and off as a solicitor from February to April 2016 with his old firm. He continued to work with the firm until January 2017.
The SRA initially presented an agreed outcome made with Baker to the tribunal, proposing that he be suspended for three years.
But the tribunal was not satisfied that this result adequately reflected the seriousness of the admitted misconduct and a revised five-year suspension was put forward, which the tribunal accepted ‘albeit with some reservations’.
‘There was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm by removing the respondent’s ability to practise,’ the judgment states. ‘However, the tribunal was satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of this case, neither the protection of the public nor the protection of the reputation of the legal profession justified the imposition of the ultimate sanction, namely a strike off. That said, the tribunal would not shrink from such a course in any future case where an order of the tribunal was ignored.’
Baker, admitted in 1992, had been invited by a partner at the firm in February 2016 to return to help with a client selling their home, business and land. The client was told that he would be a ‘dedicated assistant for day-to-day contact’ and Baker later admitted to SRA investigators he worked as a clerk to help the firm.
But correspondence on the client files showed Baker was doing more than clerical work, including arranging for a restriction to be placed on the register and drafting a loan agreement.
In non-agreed mitigation, Baker said he was not paid for his work and wrongly assumed that he was not acting in breach of his suspension. Throughout the matter he did not call himself a solicitor, although he did become heavily involved due to the complexity. Baker added that he valued his role and apologised for what was a ‘stain on his career as a solicitor and the profession generally’.
As well as his five-year suspension, he will also pay £4,000 costs.
