Decisions and interventions

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

The respondent had provided inaccurate and misleading information to the SRA by stating that there had been no correspondence between: (i) Obelisk Law Ltd and Rigil Kent Acquisitions Ltd (RKAL); Rigil Kent Corporate Acquisitions and Turnaround Ltd (RKCAT); Nataliia Fox, Kevin Morris and French Fox Ltd; and (ii) Primax Law Ltd and French Fox Ltd, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had provided inaccurate and misleading information to the SRA by stating that all clients of Obelisk Law Ltd had consented to the transfer of their files from Obelisk Law Ltd to another law firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

The respondent had transferred up to 293 client files from Obelisk Law Ltd to ACN Law without obtaining written consent from those clients, thereby breaching principle 4 and failing to comply with outcomes 1.2 and 6.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

She had failed adequately to cooperate with and provide information to the SRA in failing adequately to respond to enquiries made by the SRA between June and August 2018, failing to provide all of the information sought in two Production Notices dated 24 January 2019, and failing to respond to requests for information sent to her on 20 February 2019, thereby breaching principle 7 and failing to comply with outcome 10.6 of the code.

In failing to provide all the information sought in the Production Notices dated 24 January 2019, she had further failed to comply with outcomes 10.8 and 10.9 of the code.

She had provided inaccurate and misleading information to the Insolvency Service in stating that: (i) her involvement with Nataliia Fox was limited to an immigration matter and brief advice on the set-up of an ABS law firm; and (ii) that she was not involved in reviewing any asset purchase agreement for RKAL or RKCAT, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

As at 4 February 2019, she had improperly held office monies totalling £23,702.37 in the client account of Obelisk Law, thereby breaching principle 8 and rule 14.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.  

She had provided immigration advice as a solicitor while she was neither a recognised sole practitioner nor a manager, employee or member of an authorised body, thereby breaching principle 7, rules 1.1 and 10.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011, and regulations 9.5 and 10.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.

She had failed to cooperate with an investigation by the Legal Ombudsman into a complaint made by a client in respect of immigration advice and had failed to comply with the Legal Ombudsman’s final decision dated 6 July 2021 which ordered her to make a payment of £2,600, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 7.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent’s motivation had been financial. It had not been spontaneous but a deliberate course of action in which she had misled her regulator and others.

The harm she had caused was very high, and she had acted dishonestly. She had no previous disciplinary findings recorded against her and she had had a hitherto unblemished career. There was only limited evidence of genuine insight. However, she had made admissions, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings.

There were no exceptional circumstances present in the case such that a lesser sanction than strike-off was warranted.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £48,000.

On 26 May 2023, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the former practice of David Thomas Bryson (deceased), based at 71 The Wills Building, Wills Oval, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE7 7RH. There was no attendance.

The grounds of intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Bryson is or was a trustee – (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

No one had been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The SRA intervened on 23 May 2023 into the remainder of the former practice of Frank Nicholas Fraser Haddock (deceased), Haddock & Co Solicitors. The firm closed on 30 September 2019. Mr Haddock practised from The Office, Wallhurst Manor, Picts Lane, Cowfold, Horsham RH13 8AW.

The grounds of intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of former clients of the firm – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974.

No intervention agent has been appointed.

On 18 May 2023, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the recognised sole practice of Darren Hanison, who practised as Fortitude Law, which was based at 17a Oathall Road, Haywards Heath RH16 3EG. The intervention was effected on 22 May 2023.

The first date of attendance was 23 May 2023.

The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Hanison in connection with his practice (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974 as amended).
• Hanison had failed to comply with rules made under sections 31, 32 and 37(2)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1 to the act).

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

On 22 May 2023, an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the above-named former sole practice of Antony Addison Gorley, formerly based at Wessex House, Oxford Road, Newbury RG14 1PA. The firm closed on 30 September 2010.

Mr Gorley died on 1 April 2016.

The grounds for intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the former clients of the firm – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The SRA will be making arrangements to collect all archived files relating to this firm.