Decisions and intervention

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While in practice as a partner at Rudds Solicitors the respondent had made statements to a client, A, which were untrue and were likely to mislead him as to the progress of legal proceedings, and which he knew, or ought to have known, were liable to have that effect at the time he made them, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made statements to his clients, B and C, which were untrue and likely to mislead them as to the process of obtaining a lease extension on their behalf, and which he knew, or ought to have known, were liable to have this effect at the time he made them, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made statements to his client, D, which were untrue and likely to mislead her as to the progress of obtaining a grant of probate on her mother’s estate, and which he knew or ought to have known were liable to have this effect at the time he made them, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted recklessly.

When selling a property during the administration of the estate of E, he had failed to contact E’s ex-wife, F, about the sale of the property which he knew or ought to have known that she owned jointly; failed to obtain F’s agreement to and signature on the transfer document and failed to carry out due diligence to identify the person who signed the transfer documentation representing themselves as F, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome.

The respondent had accepted that he knew he had made untrue and misleading statements to clients on the progress of their matters. Those untruths were substantial and significant in nature. That very serious misconduct was made more egregious by the fact that he had occupied the roles of the firm’s compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration.

Given the admission of dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent from the roll. No exceptional circumstances had been found such that a strike-off would be disproportionate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £17,995.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1976) should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for two years from 27 April 2023. The SDT further ordered that the second respondent (admitted 1996) should pay a fine of £15,000.

While acting as the trustee of the Albert Harris Will Trust the first respondent had preferred the interests of South London Cleaning No 1 Ltd (SLC), a company in which his wife had a 50% shareholding, over the interests of the trust and the residuary beneficiary of the trust by causing or permitting payments to be made to SLC for services rendered which he knew to be excessive, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome O(11.1) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted recklessly.

The first respondent had claimed payments from the Trust totalling £36,652.50 in respect of professional charges which were excessive for the services which he had provided, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6, and failing to achieve outcome O(11.1) of the code. He had acted recklessly.

The second respondent had, while in practice at Anthony Gold Solicitors and while acting as the trustee of the Albert Harris Will Trust, preferred the interests of SLC, a company in which his wife had a 50% shareholding, over those of the trust and the residuary beneficiary by causing or permitting payments to be made to SLC for services rendered without disclosing his wife’s interest to the residuary beneficiary or the trust, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The first respondent’s misconduct was deliberate and had continued over a period of time. He had sought to blame the second respondent, on the basis that the second respondent had failed to provide him with proper advice as to his responsibilities as a trustee. However, the first respondent was far more experienced than the second respondent both in terms of his experience as a solicitor generally, and his experience in probate and trust law and there was very little evidence of the first respondent ever asking for advice on any of the matters in respect of which his conduct was criticised.

He had shown some insight into his misconduct and had made full admissions to all of the allegations.

While there was a need to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm from the first respondent, neither of those required that he be permanently removed from practice. The appropriate and proportionate sanction was to suspend him from practice for two years.

The second respondent had not been motivated to commit misconduct. His misconduct had arisen as a result of his culpable error in failing to disclose his wife’s interest in SLC. The appropriate and proportionate sanction was a financial penalty.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £11,250. The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

On 12 July 2023 the SRA intervened into the recognised sole practice of Rayda Pauline Lee-Nichols, Harley Solicitors, formerly of 64 Harley Street, London W1G 7HB. The grounds for intervention were:

• Lee-Nicols had failed to comply with rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 1(1)( c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974.
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Lee-Nichols – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974.

Lee-Nichols does not hold a current practising certificate.

Richard Thorpe of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.