Decisions and interventions

On 2 February, the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into Matini Montecristo LLP, formerly at 239 Kensington High Street, London W8 6SN.

The firm closed on 12 August 2023.

The grounds of intervention were: Ardeshir Matini, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, have failed to comply with the rules applicable to them by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) – paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to that act.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@LA-Law.com) has been appointed as the intervention agent.

The first date of attendance was 7 February 2024.

On 9 February, the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into Nigel Broadhead Mynard, formerly at 32 Rainsford Road, Chelmsford CM1 2QG.

The firm closed on 29 December 2023.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene into the firm to protect the interests of the former clients of the firm.

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau LLP, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (email: Interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 14 February.

On 12 February, the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Anbananden Sooben at Duncan Ellis Solicitors, based at Suite 1 Fairland House, 380 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 3LH.

The first date of attendance was 19 February.

The ground of intervention was: to intervene into the recognised sole practice of Sooben on the following grounds:

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

(ii) Sooben had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, and the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202 786341) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

On 16 February, the SRA intervened into the former recognised sole practice of Fabian Todd, Todd & Company Solicitors, previously of 47a Wellfield Road, Roath, Cardiff CF24 3PA.

The firm closed on 29 May 2022.

The grounds of intervention were:

• Todd had failed to comply with the SRA Code of Conduct for solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

l It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Todd’s clients or former clients or potential clients (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974) (as amended)).

No intervention agent has been appointed.

On 26 February, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of ST Law Solicitors Limited, formerly of 74 Ilford Lane, Ilford IG1 2LA.

The firm closed on 30 September 2018.

The grounds for intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients; the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee; or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of the firm is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as a manager or employee (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

No agent has been appointed.

On 21 February, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Pembrokes Solicitors, formerly at Kemp House, 152 City Road, London EC1V 2NX.

The firm closed on 1 November 2015.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene into the firm to protect the interests of former clients of the firm.

No intervention agent has been appointed.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for eight years from 13 December 2023. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell and while being a member of a jury, the respondent had intentionally disclosed to other jury members information obtained in contravention of the Juries Act 1974, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

She had pleaded guilty to the offence under the Juries Act 1974, and had been sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.

The respondent had been motivated by her investment in the case and by trying to obtain a just outcome. The judge had accepted that she had not intended to cause the consequences that had occurred.

While the actions had not been planned the respondent had had time to consider them. However during discussions in the jury room she had discussed matters with another juror, including showing that juror information she had obtained despite warnings from the trial judge on more than one occasion of the impropriety of jurors undertaking their own research.

She had breached the trust placed in her as a jury member. She was an experienced solicitor who had caused significant harm as a result of her conduct, both to the reputation of the profession and to the witnesses in the trial. Her conduct was aggravated by her criminal conviction and the material breach of her obligation to protect the public and the reputation of the profession.

In mitigation, the respondent had voluntarily notified the regulator. It was a single episode of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career. She had made open and frank admissions and had shown genuine insight into her misconduct.

While it was true that the respondent had already been punished by virtue of her custodial sentence, that punishment related to her criminal conduct. The SDT was considering an appropriate sanction for her professional misconduct that had arisen as a result of her criminal conduct.

The seriousness of the misconduct, while significant, did not justify striking the respondent’s name off the roll.

As a result of her misconduct when serving as a juror, the respondent had been disqualified from jury service for a period of 10 years. Given the underlying conduct amounting to that disqualification, it was not appropriate to allow the respondent to return to practice during its currency.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,000.