Eight solicitors are to face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over their conduct in the months leading up to the collapse of Manchester firm Cobbetts, the Solicitors Regulation Authority revealed today. All are accused of providing misleading information to various parties, thereby exhibiting ‘manifest incompetence’. 

All the accusations are unproven and subject to a hearing. 

Cobbetts was acquired by DWF in February 2013 in a pre-pack administration after getting in to financial difficulties. According to the SRA’s website, the following individuals have been referred to the tribunal: Stephen John Benson, Jeremy Mark Green, Paul Andrew Brown, Nicholas John Carr, Richard Mark Dean Webb, Mark Gibson, Stephen Alan Thornton,  James Boyd. 

For the full allegations, see below. 

Benson. The SRA alleges:  

1. In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of

 i) a third party lender; 

ii) an insurance company; and 

iii) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following:

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts;

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Green. The SRA alleges that: 

In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) a third party lender; 

ii) an insurance company; and

iii) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Brown. The SRA alleges that:

1. In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) the SRA; 

ii) a third party lender; 

iii) an insurance company; and 

iv) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 7 (insofar as it related to the SRA) and/or Principle 6 (insofar as regards to third parties) of the SRA Principles 2011. 

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits;

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Carr. The SRA alleges that:

1. In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) the SRA; 

ii) a third party lender; 

iii) an insurance company; and 

iv) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 7 (insofar as it related to the SRA) and/or Principle 6 (insofar as regards to third parties) of the SRA Principles 2011.

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Webb. The SRA alleges that: 

1. In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) the SRA; 

ii) a third party lender; 

iii) an insurance company; and 

iv) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 7 (insofar as it related to the SRA) and/or Principle 6 (insofar as regards to third parties) of the SRA Principles 2011.

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Gibson. The SRA alleges that: 

1. In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) the SRA; 

ii) a third party lender; 

iii) an insurance company; and 

iv) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 7 (insofar as it related to the SRA) and/or Principle 6 (insofar as regards to third parties) of the SRA Principles 2011.

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members’ drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence.

Thornton. The SRA alleges that: 

In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) a third party lender; 

ii) an insurance company; and 

iii) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

2. In the opinion of the Law Society (“the Society”), he has occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on their part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for them to be involved in a legal practice in one or more of the ways mentioned in S43 subsection 1(a) of the Solicitors Act 1974.

Boyd. The SRA alleges that:

In his role at Cobbetts LLP from June 2012 to February 2013 he was responsible individually and/or collectively for providing misleading information and/or for failing to provide material information to one or more of 

i) the SRA; 

ii) a third party lender; 

iii) an insurance company; and 

iv) a former member; and thereby exhibited manifest incompetence and acted in breach of Principle 7 (insofar as it related to the SRA) and/or Principle 6 (insofar as regards to third parties) of the SRA Principles 2011. 

2. From June 2012, by reason of the conduct giving rise to Allegation 1 above, and by one or more of the following: 

i) causing or permitting the Firm being able to meet its debts; 

ii) causing or permitting members' drawings to exceed profits; 

iii) failing to have an appropriate contingency plan in place; he was responsible individually and/or collectively for failing to run the business or carry out his respective role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles and thereby acted in breach of Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and exhibited manifest incompetence. 

3. In the opinion of the Law Society ('the Society'), he has occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on their part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for them to be involved in a legal practice in one or more of the ways mentioned in S43 subsection 1(a) of the Solicitors Act 1974.