An experienced solicitor who left probate matters untouched for years has been fined £16,000 by the tribunal but allowed to continue practising.

Peter Mark Arnstein admitted neglecting files and failing to make payments – despite regular update requests from beneficiaries of the estates – while with Twickenham firm Forman Welch & Bellamys and then Coplexia Collaborative LLP.

But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Arnstein had not lacked integrity as the SRA had alleged, concluding that his was an example of ‘manifest incompetence’ rather than any deliberate act.

Given this finding, and the fact that the SRA investigation had hung over Arnstein for more than three years, the tribunal ruled it was not necessary to impose any restriction on his right to practise.

Arnstein, a solicitor since 1977, had in one case been instructed to administer an estate in 2006 that was ultimately valued at almost £4m. After the payment of bequests set out in the will, the rest of the estate was to be shared between five charities, but after three initial payments in 2011, no payments were made to beneficiaries for five years. The matter was eventually handed by the executor to another firm to be concluded.

On another estate matter, four beneficiary charities received first payments in 2008 and 2013 but then nothing until December 2017, when the client account balance was transferred.

The SRA argued that Arnstein showed a ‘wilful disregard’ for his obligations and had produced no good reason for any of the delays. His representative told the tribunal there had been no deliberate intent to breach the rules or code of conduct and ‘no cogent or compelling argument’ that could show a lack of integrity.

The tribunal drew a distinction between conduct that was unethical and manifestly incompetent, and said Arnstein could not be treated the same as a solicitor who misled a court or made deliberate acts for his own benefit.

In assessing sanction, the tribunal said Arnstein was directly responsible for the matters in question and should have asked for help if he was having difficulty running cases. But his misconduct was in the context of an impeccable previous career and it was not necessary for the protection of the public to strike off or suspend him.

Given the lesser finding, as well as significant delays in bringing the case, the tribunal also rejected the SRA’s claim for £33,550 in costs, ordering instead that Arnstein pay £14,000.

Topics