Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £23,000.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at the firm and attending the firm’s Christmas lunch in December 2017, the respondent had sung a song in front of and directed at A, a trainee at the firm, and had made gestures which were sexualised in nature and comprised breaches of principles 2, 6 and 9 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The respondent had admitted the allegation in its entirety. However, there remained a factual dispute between his recollection of events and that of A, namely whether the respondent’s misconduct had been precipitated by an invitation from A to ‘do something outrageous’ or words to that effect.

The respondent had been motivated to behave in the manner that he did following an express ‘invitation’ from A. His misconduct was spontaneous and reactive to the same. However, the words used, the gestures that he had elected to deploy, the fact that he was a partner, at a work event, with colleagues present and in a public setting represented a grave breach of his position of trust. The fact that it was highly likely that the respondent had been intoxicated did not vitiate the direct control that he had had in response to the ‘invitation’ to say something ‘naughty/outrageous’.

A had plainly suffered direct harm as a consequence of the respondent’s misconduct, but not to the extent that she had advanced in evidence.

Harm had also been caused to the reputation of the profession as a consequence of the respondent’s misconduct.

The level of the misconduct was very serious. A financial penalty at level 4 was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in all the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,800.

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

While in practice as a solicitor and principal at Absolute Legal Ltd the respondent had used client money for a purpose not permitted under the Solicitors Accounts Rules as evidenced by the minimum cash shortage which had arisen on client matters C and D, and had thereby breached rules 1.2(c), 20 and 5.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELS and RFLs.

He had (a) failed to carry out client account reconciliations, and (b) failed to keep accounting records for the firm properly written up to show dealings with client and office money, and had failed appropriately to record all dealings with client money in accordance with the applicable rules, thereby breaching principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; rules 29.1, 29.2, 29.9 and 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 2 of the SRA Principles; rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules, and rule 4.2 of the code. He had acted recklessly.

He had failed to obtain accountant’s reports for the firm in breach of principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; rule 32A1(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019; and rule 12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules. He had acted recklessly.

He had caused or allowed to be deleted two emails addressed to Mrs Huxtable (COLP of the firm) from the SRA dated 23 August 2019 and 29 October 2019, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent’s motivation had been to hide the firm’s financial distress and the chaos into which his accounts had descended, and to conceal the SRA’s investigation from his wife. That might have started as something spontaneous, but had become a deliberate course of action which had spiralled away from the respondent.

He had made no attempt to pay back the lost funds and he had abdicated that responsibility to his wife. The harm caused was very high.

He had acted dishonestly, which was the gravest possible aggravating factor. There were very few mitigating factors save that the respondent had no previous disciplinary findings recorded against him and that he had had a hitherto unblemished career.

The respondent had not advanced any exceptional reasons as to whether the ultimate sanction of striking off should not apply given the finding of dishonesty. The reputation of the profession required no lesser sanction than that he be struck from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £18,500.

On 1 June the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened into the above-named recognised body, Ivy Solicitors Ltd, of 219 Chingford Mount Road, Chingford, London E4 8LP, and into the practice of Mohamed Faisal Mamon.

Mamon is the sole director of the firm.

The grounds of intervention into Ivy Solicitors Ltd and into the practice of Mamon were that they had failed to comply with rules made under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 195, and sections 31, 32 and 37(2)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 32(1)(a), Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, and paragraph 1(1)(c), Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

Mamon’s practising certificate was suspended automatically as a result of the intervention decision.

The intervention agent is Richard Thorpe of Shakespeare Martineau LLP, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham, B2 2HX. Tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk.