Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor in February 2016 the respondent had driven a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had been convicted in March 2016.

In June 2018 he had driven a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, thereby breaching principle 6 of the 2011 Principles. He had been convicted in September 2018.

Between October 2018 and September 2019 he had driven his motor vehicle on at least four occasions while disqualified from driving, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles.

On at least two occasions on or around 11 August 2019 and 7 November 2019 he had made declarations on expenses claim forms which he knew or ought to have known were false, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles. He had acted dishonestly.

Between June 2020 and August 2021 he misrepresented to Keystone Law Limited that he had not been (i) convicted of a criminal offence; or (ii) subject to disciplinary procedures or investigation by any former firm or employer; or (iii) subject to investigation by the SRA, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent’s misconduct was motivated by self-preservation. He had caused harm to the reputation of the profession. His conduct was aggravated by his dishonesty, which was deliberate, calculated and repeated. He had sought to conceal his wrongdoing by placing the blame on others.

The respondent had self-reported the matters. He had a previously unblemished record and had shown insight as regards the driving offences.

The SDT had not found circumstances sufficient to bring the respondent in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category which could justify a lesser sentence than strike-off.

The amount of money as regards the expenses was relatively small. The gravamen of the offence did not relate to the amount that was being claimed, but the dishonest way in which it was being claimed. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £27,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor in employment with Oadby & Wigston Borough Council (the council) and as chair of the board of the charity Coping with Cancer (the charity) the respondent had been convicted in the Crown court as follows: that (i) she had conspired to commit fraud against the council and the charity and had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; and (ii) she had conspired to convert criminal property, and had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

The respondent’s motivation was financial gain; the offending had been planned; she had been in a position of trust at both the council and the charity; she had had complete responsibility for her actions and she was an experienced solicitor who was in a position of seniority at the time of the offending.

Direct harm had been caused to the council, the charity and by extension to the users of those services, many of whom were vulnerable. The harm caused was not only reasonably foreseeable, it was inevitable and serious. The respondent had significantly abused her position of trust as a solicitor working in public service.

Her misconduct was aggravated by the following factors: dishonesty; commission of a criminal offence; the offending was deliberate, calculated and repeated; it had continued over a period of time; there had been an abuse of position; and the respondent had known that she was in material breach of her obligations.

The only identifiable mitigating factor was that the respondent had self-reported and had cooperated with the SRA. It was impossible to assess her insight because she was appealing against her convictions.

The usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off. The circumstances in which such a sanction would not be imposed were exceptional, and had in some way to relate to the dishonesty.

The SDT was unable to find any such exceptional circumstances and therefore ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll.

There was no order as to costs.

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

While in practice as the sole practitioner and owner of K Law and while in the course of acting for RP in the sale of his property BH, the respondent had failed, within a reasonable time period, to comply with an undertaking to redeem the mortgage on BH upon completion, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles, and paragraphs 1.3 and 3.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

While in the course of acting for Dr and Mrs B in the purchase of property WR the respondent had failed upon completion of the purchase (i) to pay stamp duty land tax due in respect of that property; and (ii) to register the clients’ interest in the property with the Land Registry, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10, and failing to achieve any or all of outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 in so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019, and principles 2, 5 and 7 and paragraph 3.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, in so far as the conduct occurred on or after 25 November 2019.

While in the course of acting for RP, the respondent had represented to RP that the mortgage on BH had been redeemed when it had not been, and the respondent had or ought to have known that that was the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5.

The respondent had represented to HPLP Solicitors that she had paid SDLT to HMRC in respect of the purchase of WR when she had not, and she had or ought to have known that that was the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5.

While handling the matter of RP, the respondent had engaged in offensive and threatening communications with RP, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5.

The respondent had caused one or more improper transfers to be made from the client account in the matters of RP and of Dr and Mrs B, thereby breaching rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rule 2011, principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, in so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019, and rule 5.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules and principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 in so far as the conduct had occurred on or after 25 November 2019. In so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019 the respondent had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had caused client to office transfers purportedly for costs without any documentation to support the same, resulting in a shortage on the client account of £182,005, thereby breaching rules 17.2, 17.4 and 17.7 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 2, 6, 8 and 10, so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019, and rule 4.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules and principles 2, 4 and 5 so far as the conduct had occurred on or after 25 November 2019. In so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019 the respondent had acted dishonestly.

During the SRA’s investigation into the conduct alleged, the respondent had failed to comply in full with a production notice served pursuant to section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974, thereby breaching paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and principles 2 and 5.

The respondent’s misconduct had started as a consequence of maladministration and personal pressures, and the motivation had become to mask her own mistakes. It had therefore escalated and had resulted in the use of client funds to prop up the firm financially and support her personal expenditure. If not originally planned it had become so. It was not a one-off event but a pattern of planned misconduct that had taken place over a two-year period and had involved more than one client.

There was an element of a breach of trust in that there had been personal friendships as well as a solicitor-client relationship. The two clients had clearly been hugely disadvantaged, and the damage to the reputation of the profession was horrendous. The misconduct was aggravated by the findings of dishonesty.

The usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off. The circumstances in which such a sanction was not imposed were exceptional, and there were none such in the present case. The respondent was a danger to the public and the SDT had a duty to protect the public by striking her off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £49,001.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at MFG Solicitors LLP, the respondent had falsified the date on the legal charge to Paragon Bank the title WM737705 pertaining to the property at 108 Humber Avenue, Coventry CV1 2AT by changing it from 3 December 2018 to 23 December 2018, so it would meet the prescribed timescale for registration at Companies House, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He 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 was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent had sought to conceal her failure to register the charge by changing the date on the document, in the knowledge that doing so was dishonest.

The SDT determined that in the light of the misconduct and admitted dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no exceptional circumstances such that striking her off the roll would be disproportionate. Accordingly, the SDT approved the sanction proposed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,500.

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

While in practice as a partner at Osborne Morris & Morgan, the respondent had misled his client’s litigation friend that a pre-action protocol letter in respect of his client’s case had been sent, when he knew that not to be true, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

He had delayed and/or failed to take adequate steps to progress his client’s claim, thereby failing to achieve outcome 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and breaching principles 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.

The respondent had knowingly and deliberately misled his client’s litigation friend for a significant period of time. Further, he had failed to progress the matter adequately. The SDT had determined that as a result of the continued dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The SDT had not found (and indeed none had been submitted) any exceptional circumstances such that striking him off the roll would be disproportionate.

Accordingly, the SDT approved the proposed sanction of striking the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,175.

 On 4 September 2023, the panel resolved to intervene into Shashi Patel’s practice at Patel & Co, 5 Brook Street, Daventry NN11 4GG.

The grounds of intervention were: Patel had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) – paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the act.

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA, tel: 0333 321 4406, email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk, has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 7 September 2023.

Patel’s current practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention.