Decisions and interventions

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

The respondent, while in practice as a solicitor at Simons Muirhead Burton, had (i) failed to serve a counternotice by the statutory deadline for service of 4 January 2023, thus impacting clients A and B’s negotiating position, and thereby breaching principle 7 of the SRA’s Principles 2019 and paragraph 3.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; (ii) on 6 January 2023 he had created a letter, and statutory counternotice, falsely dated 3 January 2023, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the Code; (iii) on 6 January 2023 he had sent or caused to be sent to DKLM the letter and counternotice falsely dated 3 January 2023, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the Code; and (iv) on 11 January 2023, he had sent an email to DKLM which was misleading and which he knew or ought to have known was misleading as to the date the letter and counternotice, falsely dated 3 January 2023, had been posted, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the Principles 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 outcome annexed to the judgment. They submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the tribunal’s guidance note on sanctions.

The respondent had admitted all allegations and all associated breaches of the principles and code of conduct and rules.

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 respondent had accepted the allegations made against him which included dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct and the admission of dishonesty, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the SDT had no alternative but to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

While it was no doubt a serious matter to miss an important deadline, solicitors who found themselves in such a situation would always increase the level of seriousness by choosing to hide the mistake or oversight through acts of dishonesty.

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

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for one year from the date of approval of this agreed outcome, such suspension to be suspended for two years from the same date subject to the respondent’s compliance with the following conditions: (i) that he might not be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration; (ii) that he might not hold client money subject to the provisions of (iv) below; (iii) that he would file annual accountant’s reports with the SRA as they fell due and would file a cease to hold accountant’s report when he closed the firm’s client account; (iv) that he undertook to close all of the firm’s client accounts within two months from the date of approval of this agreed outcome and to provide evidence of the same to the SRA in the form of bank statements and a letter from the bank(s) at which the client account(s) is/are held by 28 February 2025.

Should the respondent be found to have breached any of the conditions set out above, activation by the SDT of the suspension of one year would follow in addition to any sanction imposed for the breach of conditions. Should the period of two years under restriction be successfully completed, the suspended suspension from practice of one year would cease to have effect.

The SDT was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent’s repeated breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules had caused harm not only to client A but to the reputation of the profession. The aggravating features of the respondent’s conduct included the following: (i) the conduct had continued over a significant period of time; (ii) there had been at least seven improper transfers made in breach of the SRA Accounts Rules in relation to the current allegations; and (iii) the respondent had had previous disciplinary matters of a similar nature before the SDT.

The respondent did not appear to have gained any insight into his conduct, nor had he attempted to refresh or improve his knowledge of the SRA Accounts Rules to avoid future breaches.

Despite factors mitigating the seriousness of the admitted breaches, including open and frank admissions made by the respondent to the regulator in addition to his full cooperation during the course of the investigation and the proceedings, the SDT considered that a fine or a reprimand would not be appropriate to address the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct.

In order to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm, the appropriate sanction would be a period of suspension of the respondent’s ability to practise. The period of suspension would be suspended with the imposition of suitable conditions.

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

On 27 January 2025, an adjudicator resolved to intervene into E A Harris & Co Ltd, formerly at Transport House, 54 Chester Road East, Deeside CH5 1QA and The Cross, Padeswood Road, Buckley CH7 2JL. The sole director at the firm was Gary Connah.

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 (as amended).

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0392; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com), has been appointed to act as intervention agent.

The first date of attendance was 28 January 2025.