Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. The applicant had alleged in a Rule 12 Statement dated 13 December 2023 that, while in practice as the sole owner and director of Sterlingking Ltd, the respondent had made improper payments from the client bank account of the firm totalling £2,852,000, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and rules 1.2(c) and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

 Pursuant to rule 14 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, the applicant had referred the following additional allegations against the respondent to those already before the SDT:

• that the respondent had engaged in a course of conduct that had amounted to stalking and had caused person G serious alarm or distress, which had had an adverse effect on person G’s usual day-to-day activities, when he knew, or ought to have known, that his course of conduct would cause alarm or distress to person G on each occasion, in that he had: (i) followed person G into town and home again; (ii) turned up at person G’s house on multiple occasions; (iii) loitered outside person G’s house; and (iv) sent person G multiple unwanted emails, contrary to section 4A(1)(a)(b)(ii) and 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019; and
• that the respondent had failed to notify the SRA of his conviction of 17 May 2023 for the offence detailed above, thereby breaching paragraph 7.6(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and principles 2 and 5.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and had found the allegations proved to the requisite standard. His level of culpability was very high, and no mitigating factors had been identified in his favour.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, a fine or suspension would not be a sufficient or appropriate sanction. The SDT ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll.

He was ordered to pay costs of £16,280.

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

While working at Eric Robinson Solicitors, the respondent had provided his personal bank account details to clients on two occasions and had received sums of £2,000 from client S and £5,000 from client M respectively, into his personal bank account in relation to those clients’ property matters, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and rules 1.2(a) and (b) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

While working as a consultant for Keystone Law, the respondent had misled Keystone Law and its COLP: (a) by giving a false warranty as to whether he was subject to any regulatory investigations into his conduct by the SRA; (b) as to whether he had requested clients pay funds to his personal bank account on any other occasions; and (c) as to the reason for requesting that a client make payment to his personal account. In doing so, he had breached 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.

While working as a consultant for Keystone Law, the respondent had provided his personal bank account details to client J and received £3,000 into his personal bank account in relation to client J’s property matter, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rules 2.3 and 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

The respondent’s motivation for his misconduct had been his financial difficulties and personal gain. His misconduct in requesting and receiving funds from clients to his personal account had been planned and deliberate and repeated at least three times.

He had caused serious harm to his clients and the reputation of the profession by repeatedly requesting and receiving client funds to his personal account and thereby denying the clients the protection that they would have had if the funds had been paid to the respective firm’s accounts. Moreover, the harm caused by his misconduct was aggravated by the fact that the conduct had been deliberate, dishonest and repeated. Given the serious nature of the allegation of dishonesty, the SDT had considered and rejected the lesser sanctions within its sentencing powers such as no order, a reprimand, or restrictions, and had therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,282.

On 21 August 2024, an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body, and into Alistair Kenyon Davies, practising at BPS Solicitors Ltd, 101 Old Hall Street, Liverpool L3 9BD.

The ground for intervention into Davies’ practice was: Davies had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The grounds for intervention into BPS Solicitors Ltd were: Davies, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the rules applicable to them by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA (tel: 0333 321 4402, email: interventions@ stephensons.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent. The first date of attendance was 22 August.

Davies’ practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention decision.