Decisions and interventions

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

The respondent had made statements in an email to the firm regarding his involvement with CL which were untrue and misleading, namely that (i) in relation to a loan agreement between client B and person C, he had been provided with contact details for client B by another solicitor at the firm; (ii) he had not been advised of any connection between client B and CL; and (iii) client B had advised him that the funds for the transaction were his personal funds, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made statements in a meeting to PH and AS of the firm regarding his involvement with CL which were untrue and misleading namely that: (i) he did not know who CL was until he was referred to a newspaper article and found out about his conviction; (ii) he had not been dealing with CL after he found out about his conviction; (iii) he had met person A only once, about 12 to 18 months previously; (iv) he did not think that there was any connection between CL, client B and client D but that he did not know; (v) he thought CL and client B did know each other but did not think there was a business link between them in relation to the lending to person C, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

Through his representative he had made a statement to the SRA which was untrue, namely that he had no relationship at all with CL and had never had any relationship with him, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved repeated dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent had admitted that his conduct had been dishonest. All that could be said on his behalf had been said. However, that mitigation was not sufficient to establish that this was a case where exceptional circumstances existed.

The nature, scope and extent of the dishonesty, while taking place over a relatively short period of time, were extensive.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the provision of legal services, was to order that the respondent be struck off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay £17,000 costs.

On 21 June 2023 a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Law Direct Limited, trading as: Redfern & Co, Brinley Morris Rees & Jones, Ellison & Co, Davies Phillips LLP (aka Davies Ingram & Harvey), Geoffrey Bryant & Co Limited, Strain Keville LLP and Dakers Solicitors.

The intervention was effected on 22 June 2023.

The grounds of intervention in relation to Law Direct Limited were: Law Direct Limited entered into administration on 20 June 2023 which is a relevant insolvency event (paragraph 32(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of the

Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions PO Box, 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX; tel: 0300 247 2470, email: interventions@shma.co.uk; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

On 6 July 2023 our adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Eric Kawoya Kabuye, and into Queenscourt Law Ltd T/A Hamiltons Solicitors, which was based at Ground Floor, 29 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Holborn, London WC2A 3EG. The first date of attendance was 7 July 2023.

The grounds of intervention were:

• to intervene into the practice of Kabuye on the following grounds:

(a) There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Kabuye in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

(b) Kabuye had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

• To intervene into Queenscourt Law T/A Hamilton Solicitors (the firm) on the following grounds:

(a) There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Kabuye, a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

(b) Kabuye, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2019, the SRA Codes of Conduct 2019 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, which are rules applicable to them, both by virtue of Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of that act).

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

On 17 July 2023, the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the above-named practice of David Du Pre, based at 23 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EB.

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

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL; tel: 0113 227 0391; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 19 July 2023.

Du Pre does not hold a current practising certificate.