Decisions and interventions

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

While a solicitor and director at Information Officers Limited, the respondent had submitted or caused to be submitted two lasting powers of attorney to the Office of the Public Guardian which she knew were misleading, in that they purported to show that the donor had signed and dated both LPAs on 4 August 2015 and that the respondent had witnessed those signatures, when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

While employed as a consultant solicitor at Richard Nelson LLP, the respondent had pre-signed conveyancing documents, including mortgage deeds, personal guarantees and occupiers’ consent forms as a witness, in circumstances where she knowingly had not in fact witnessed the relevant signatures on the documents, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the Principles, so far as the conduct pre-dated 25 November 2019, and principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and Paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, so far as the conduct occurred on or after 25 November 2019.

The respondent’s motivation for her misconduct was to get the work done for her clients in the shortest time and at the cheapest cost. Inevitably, that had resulted in corner cutting and the respondent developing her own procedures which were seriously deficient and had left her clients at risk of having an invalid deed or document.

The misconduct had arisen from a conscious decision on the respondent’s part to follow a certain course of action. While she had been dealing with vulnerable people, she had not taken advantage of them by reason of their vulnerabilities, and to her credit she had not sought to place the blame on anyone else.

Regrettably, there was no evidence of insight from the respondent who had said in evidence that she would continue with the practices identified as deficient.

There were no exceptional circumstances present in the respondent’s case such that a lesser sanction than strike-off was warranted. The dishonesty had been woven into a thought-out process of corner cutting, with the respondent calculating that the defectively witnessed documents would be accepted at face value without any checking. The failure of the documents to be validly executed had potentially catastrophic ramifications.

The SDT entreated solicitors starting out in the profession and within all specific areas of practice to thoroughly learn their craft before espousing to the public expertise they did not yet possess.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £19,453.

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

While purporting to act on behalf of the firm, the respondent had requested and received money from clients for legal services by bank transfer into his personal bank account and had subsequently failed to account for that money to the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had concealed from the firm that he was acting for clients in his personal capacity by (i) failing to open specific client files using the firm’s systems; (ii) using the firm’s letterheads without their knowledge or authority; (iii) receiving client moneys into his own personal account; and (iv) representing client K in criminal proceedings without authority of the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

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

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The nature of the respondent’s misconduct, including admissions that his conduct was dishonest, was such that the only reasonable and proportionate sanction was to strike him from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,750.

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

While practising as a solicitor at Ascent Performance Group Limited, the respondent had, in the matter of Client A v Mr and Mrs B, informed the court that an agent who was booked to attend the hearing was unable to attend through illness, when she knew that that information was untrue, as no advocate had been booked to attend. By doing so she had breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and had acted dishonestly.

In the matter of Client A v Mr JW, she had created an email containing a false attendance note purportedly received from LPC Law, relating to a court hearing which had purportedly taken place on 3 November 2017, and forwarded that attendance note by email to the firm’s document inbox so that it would be uploaded to the firm’s case management system. By doing so she had acted in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and had acted dishonestly.

In the matter of Client A v Mr AR, she had created an email containing a false attendance note purportedly received form LPC Law relating to a court hearing which had purportedly taken place on 27 April 2017, and forwarded that attendance note by email to the client. By doing so she had acted in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles and had acted dishonestly.

In six civil litigation matters, she had misled client A about the progress of claims including, in each matter, informing client A that judgment had been obtained in its favour when she knew that was untrue. By doing so, she had acted in breach of principles 2, 4 and 6 of the 2011 Principles and had acted dishonestly.

In respect of any conduct from 25 November 2019, she had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the 2019 Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

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 SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The misconduct was sustained and not an isolated, one-off moment of poor judgement.

The respondent had lied to clients, to her employer and to the court.

There were no exceptional circumstances and, indeed, none had been advanced. The proposed sanction of strike-off was entirely appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 28 days from 1 February 2024.

While in practice as a solicitor at Plexus Law, the respondent had signed six statements of truth in defences to road traffic accident claims, by appending a colleague’s electronic signature to each defence without the colleague’s knowledge or consent, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

He had filed or caused to be filed at court the six defences bearing his colleague’s electronic signature, representing that they had each been signed by his colleague when he knew or ought to have known they had not, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

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 respondent’s culpability was high. He was solely responsible for his conduct. He was an extremely experienced solicitor, who was a partner in the firm with supervisory and management responsibilities. His misconduct had been repeated across six different documents.

In mitigation, he had self-reported and had taken immediate steps to rectify the situation by informing both the court and the other parties in all six matters. The matter having been reported, the court had granted permission for the defences to be amended and had not reported any of the matters to the SRA.

Given the nature of the misconduct, the SDT had determined that a short suspension was an appropriate and proportionate penalty in order to protect the public and the reputation of the profession.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,500.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.  While in practice as a solicitor at Coventgate Law Limited, the respondent had failed to maintain qualifying insurance while continuing to undertake activities in connection with private legal practice, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and rules 2.1, 2.4 and 4.2 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2019.

He had given misleading information to (i) the SRA on the number of live matters that the firm was working on; (ii) the intervention agents on the number of live matters at the time of intervention; (iii) his clients, by omitting to tell them that the firm did not hold appropriate insurance; and (iv) third party solicitors that the firm was still trying to obtain authorisation of a new firm. He had thereby breached paragraphs 1.4 and 7.4(a) of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors/RELs and RFLs 2019 and principles 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

He had failed to produce or maintain proper books of account, including appropriately recording dealings with client money, completing client account reconciliations, and obtaining accountants’ reports. He had thereby breached (for conduct before 25 November 2019) rules 29.2(a)/29.12/32A.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 (and for conduct on or after 25 November 2019) rules 8.1(c)/8.3/12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent’s motivation was to try to keep the firm running. His misconduct had clearly been planned as it had involved making misleading statements to a range of entities. He had deliberately misled the regulator. There was no evidence of specific harm caused to any individual or of claims to the SRA Compensation Fund. The potential for significant harm was nevertheless wide in scope.

The reputation of the profession had also been seriously undermined in circumstances where a solicitor had been dishonest to multiple audiences about his insurance position and his compliance (or lack of it) with the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules.

No mitigating factors beyond personal mitigation had been identified. The respondent’s misconduct was so serious that a reprimand, fine or restriction order would not be a sufficient sanction to protect the public or the reputation of the profession from future harm.

The SDT was not dealing with a one-off instance of misconduct in the midst of personal issues but had instead found multiple and repeated instances of a lack of integrity and dishonesty, and failure to comply with basic rules and regulations put in place to protect clients.

There was no link between the personal circumstances that the respondent had been dealing with and the pattern of concealment, untrue statements, and evasion that he had undertaken over several months.

The SDT was therefore unable to identify any exceptional circumstances and the only appropriate sanction was that the respondent should be struck off the Roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,966.

On 18 March 2024, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named former sole practice of Reginald Thorp who died on 3 August 2003. The firm, formerly at Narrowgate House, 31 Narrowgate, Alnwick, Northumberland NE66 1JL, closed on 3 August 2003.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Reginald Thorp was a trustee – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1, Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The intervention notice was served on 19 March 2024.The SRA will be making arrangements to take possession of all practice monies held by Lloyds Bank relating to this firm.

On 2 April 2024, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into Rodney Goodson of 67 City Road, Norwich NR1 3AS.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Goodson was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

No intervention agent has been appointed.