Decisions and interventions

Albert Bargery
Application 12442-2023
Hearing 17 May 2023
Reasons 22 May 2023

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

In or around May 2018, while a solicitor at Parrott & Coales LLP, the respondent had provided to his client a fabricated court order dated 15 May 2018 purporting to be made by the county court money claims court awarding his client £3,075, leading the client to believe that the court order was genuine. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

In or around September 2018, while a solicitor at the firm, he had provided his client with an email dated 25 September 2018, purporting to chase payment pursuant to the fabricated court order and leading his client to falsely believe that payment relating to the dispute was being actively pursued and progressed by him. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

Between June and August 2020, he had made false and/ or misleading representations to his then employers Real Employment Law Advice on: (i) 5 June 2020, that he was unaware of the substance of the SRA’s investigation; (ii) on 6 July 2020, that he had replied in full to the SRA’s investigation into his alleged misconduct in respect of the above allegation; and (iii) on 26 August 2020, that the SRA had not provided him with copies of the alleged fabricated court order or email in respect of the above allegations. He had thereby breached principles 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. He had acted dishonestly.

The parties had invited the SDT to dispose of the matter as set out in a statement of agreed facts and outcome.

The SDT was satisfied that the admissions contained in the statement of agreed facts and outcome had been properly made and were supported by the evidence. The respondent had made admissions to serious allegations involving dishonesty at the highest level. Only exceptional circumstances could justify a sanction other than a strike-off. No such circumstances had been advanced, and the SDT had identified none from the material before it. It was satisfied that the only appropriate sanction was that the respondent be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

Paul Formby
Application 12453-2023
Admitted 2004
Hearing 5 July 2023
Reasons 11 July 2023

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While acting on behalf of his client K in a matter in which she was a trustee in bankruptcy for Macdonald Angus Crosbie, the respondent had: (a) agreed to withdraw a section 366 Insolvency Act 1986 application without K’s knowledge or consent; and (b) agreed that K would pay the second and third respondent’s costs in relation to the withdrawal of the section 366 application without K’s knowledge or consent, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

When acting on behalf of K in the Crosbie matter and dealing with a section 367 Insolvency Act 1986 application, the respondent had redacted various paragraphs (which among other things referred to the withdrawal of the section 366 application and K’s agreement to pay costs) from certain documents he had sent to K, presenting them as the original unredacted documents, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

He had acted dishonestly.

After he had ceased to act for K in the Crosbie matter, the respondent had agreed, without K’s knowledge or consent, that she would pay the second and third respondents’ costs of £30,000, and had failed to inform her of the agreement, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6.

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

Given the admission of dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no exceptional circumstances such that striking him off the roll would be disproportionate.

The case was one where the cover-up of a mistake had resulted in an escalation into serious and embedded professional misconduct. When mistakes were made solicitors had to act with openness and full disclosure. As a general observation, the SDT urged any solicitor who realised they had made a mistake to take steps to address it before matters escalated beyond their control.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,046.

Rosemary Ann Joyce
Application 12440-2023
Admitted 1994
Hearing 28 June 2023
Reasons 13 July 2023

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for three months from 28 June 2023.

Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed indefinitely by the SDT: that she might not: (i) act as a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm; (ii) act as a compliance officer for legal practice or compliance officer for finance and administration for any authorised body, or head of legal practice or head of finance and administration for any authorised non-SRA firm, with liberty to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While a solicitor at RJ Solicitors Ltd, the respondent had carried on practice at the firm when the firm did not have a policy of qualifying professional indemnity insurance, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and rule 2.1 of the SRA Indemnity 

Insurance Rules 2019.

She had failed to notify the SRA that the firm had entered the extended indemnity period, thereby breaching principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rule 17.3(a) of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2013.

She had failed to notify the SRA that the firm had entered the cessation period, thereby breaching principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rule 17.3(b) of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2013.

She had failed to keep or maintain accounting records between 7 October 2014 and 24 November 2019, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rules 29.1, 29.2 and 29.9 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and between 25 November 2019 and 6 October 2020, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 8.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019.

She had failed to undertake periodic reconciliations of client accounts at the firm between 7 October 2014 and 24 November 2019, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rule 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and between 25 November 2019 and 6 October 2020, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019.

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

In circumstances where the admitted misconduct was not an isolated incident and had occurred over a period of time, and given the limited financial means of the respondent, a financial penalty was neither appropriate nor proportionate.

The proposed sanction of suspension and conditions appropriately reflected the gravamen of the misconduct and the public interest.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,280.

Glenn Charles Hurstfield
Application 12452-2023
Admitted 1984
Hearing 27June 2023
Reasons 5 July 2023

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

The respondent had prepared or caused to be prepared an amended and backdated declaration of trust that changed the operative provision from irrevocable to revocable, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

On each of two occasions he had authorised loans of £40,000 to be made from client B, of which he was a trustee, to client C, of which he was a director, without the authorisation of his co-trustee and without documenting the loans, thereby breaching principles 2, 3 and 10 of the Principles, and rule 27.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 3.5 of the Code of Conduct 2011.

He had made or authorised a transfer of £112,000 from the client account of client Ca into his personal bank account for a purported loan repayment, in relation to which there were no records on the client file, thereby breaching principles 3 and 10 of the Principles, rule 29.1 of the accounts rules and failing to achieve outcome 3.4 of the code.

Between 2015 and 2018, while acting for clients C, D and E, he had caused or allowed payments to be made through the client accounts which did not relate to underlying legal transactions, thereby breaching rule 14.5 of the accounts rules and principle 6 of the SRA Principles.

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 was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. He had failed in his duty as a trustee to discharge his duty of care and to act in accordance with the provisions of the trust.

Given the very serious nature of the misconduct, the lesser sanctions that the SDT was able to impose were disproportionate. The tribunal had determined that striking the respondent off the roll was commensurate with his admitted misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £52,282.62.

Robert Steven Callen
Application 12448-2003
Admitted 1984
Hearing 20 June 2023
Reasons 7 July 2023

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

In February 2018, while a solicitor, the respondent had inappropriately procured payments by cheque from VHJ, a client of his former employer, to Christine Murphy, Joanne Kaplan and Joanne Callen. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failed to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had admitted the allegation and that his conduct in acting as alleged was dishonest.

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

The respondent had admitted all the allegations made against him including dishonesty and lack of integrity. However, it was misconduct of the most egregious kind in which he had obtained money to which he was not entitled from a woman who was vulnerable by reason of her age and infirmity.

He had paid two visits to her home and following his false representations she had handed him her chequebook and he had written out the cheques.

That was disgraceful behaviour capable of shattering the trust the public place in solicitors to protect their interests.

The difficulties experienced by the respondent as set out in his mitigation did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Given the admission of dishonesty and the absence of exceptional circumstances the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,574.

Prometheus Law Limited

On Monday, 31 July 2023, the SRA intervened into the practice of Andrew Lee and into the recognised body, Prometheus Law Ltd, of 25-27 Heath Street, London NW3 6TR. Lee is the sole director of the firm.

The grounds of intervention into Lee’s practice were: � There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Lee in connection with his practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974.

Lee had failed to comply with the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2019, the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and the SRA Principles – paragraph 1(1) (c) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974.

The grounds of intervention into Prometheus Law Ltd were: � There was reason to suspect dishonesty by Lee, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Lee, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2019, the SRA Principles 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) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Lee does not hold a current practising certificate.