Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2003) should be struck off the roll. The SDT found the allegation against the second respondent was not proved and it made no order against the second respondent as to costs.

While in practice as a solicitor at the second respondent, the first respondent had failed to advise the transferor in a property transaction, either adequately or at all, as to the implications of the transaction, thereby breaching principles 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had acted for both the transferor and transferee in a property transaction, where there existed a conflict of interest or a significant risk of a conflict of interest as between the parties, thereby breaching principles 4 and 6, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.2, 3.5 and 3.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. His conduct was manifestly incompetent.

There was no specific motivation for the misconduct. It had been the result of the incompetence which had been found.

The reputation of the profession was inevitably seriously harmed by the misconduct, which had involved failing to respond appropriately to the risk of conflict. Those risks were thoroughly foreseeable and indeed obvious.

The extent of the direct harm to the transferor had been caused by the fraud perpetrated against him by others. However, the first respondent’s professional failings had helped create the environment in which that fraud had been effected, and the first respondent’s own misconduct could not be said to have been the result of fraud.

The first respondent had displayed no meaningful insight and no remorse.

While it might not always be inevitable that a finding that a solicitor had acted in a specific instance with manifest incompetence required that they be struck off the roll, in the present case the SDT was driven to that conclusion by virtue of its profound concerns about the risk to the public and to the reputation of the profession.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

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

While a partner and practising as a solicitor at Taylors Solicitors, the respondent had: (i) caused the transfer of £15,000 of client money, belonging to clients D and E, to firm F, without the clients’ consent; (ii) caused the transfer of £15,000 of client money, belonging to client H, to person I, without the client’s consent; (iii) caused the transfer of £4,800 of client money, belonging to client K, to firm L, without the client’s consent; (iv) caused the transfer of £1,250 of client money, belonging to client N, to firm O, without the client’s consent; (v) caused the transfer of £1,420 of client money, belonging to client R, to firm O, without the client’s consent; and (vi) caused the transfer of £10,000 of client money, belonging to client K, to company J, without the client’s consent, thereby breaching rules 1.2(c) and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had created a false time entry recording suggesting that he had discussed with client K the transfer of £10,000 to company J when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6.

On various occasions between 23 June 2017 and 30 January 2018, in emails or meetings, he had provided false and/or misleading information to client S, which suggested that a claim had been brought against person U when that was not the case; and he had provided false and/or misleading information to client P, which suggested that their claim against person Q had been given a trial window when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6, and failing to achieve outcome 4.2 of the code.

The respondent’s conduct was dishonest.

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

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent’s repeated departure from expected standards was serious. He had admitted that his conduct was dishonest in respect of each of the allegations. Given the nature of the misconduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike his name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £44,770.

On 12 December 2022 an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the licensed bodies MLL Limited, BPL Solicitors Limited, Beaumont ABS Limited and Atray Limited. A list of the trading names and addresses used by the firms can be found at tinyurl.com/5n8xvtyk.

The grounds for intervention were:

• it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the firms (section 1, paragraph (2)(f)(i)m Schedule 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007).

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford, BD1 5LL (telephone 0113 227 0385; email: metamorph@gordonsllp.com), has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

Please note, all four firms are owned by Metamorph Group Ltd. Metamorph also owns three more regulated entities which are not subject to the intervention: Parrott & Coales LLP, Browns Solicitors and Beeton Edwards LLP.

On 5 January 2023 the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Marcus Malin (deceased), who practised as a freelancer from premises based at Room 3, Enterprise House, Salisbury, SP2 7LD. The first date of attendance was 6 January 2023.

The grounds of intervention in relation to Mr Malin were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Malin is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX (email: enquiries@LA-Law.com), has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.