Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent firm should pay a fine of £24,892.82.

Between 26 June 2017 and around 15 February 2023, the firm had failed to have a firm-wide risk assessment in place as required by regulation 18 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, and failing to achieve paragraphs 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

Between 26 June 2017 and 12 January 2022, the respondent had failed to conduct client and matter risk assessments in relation to four client files as required by regulations 28(12) and 28(13) of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8 of the 2011 Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the 2011 Code; and breaching principle 2 of the 2019 Principles and failing to achieve paragraphs 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

Between 26 June 2017 and 31 October 2021, the respondent had failed to take adequate measures to ensure that all of its relevant employees received AML training as required by regulation 24 of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8 of the 2011 Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the 2011 Code; and breaching principle 2 of the 2019 Principles and failing to achieve paragraphs 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

The respondent admitted the allegations.

The parties invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the firm in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment.

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

The proposed financial penalty of £24,893 was proportionate and properly reflected the seriousness of the firm’s failings. Accordingly, the SDT had approved the application to deal with the matter by way of an agreed outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,107.

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

While acting as a solicitor employed by Irwin Mitchell LLP the respondent had, on various dates between around 16 June 2020 and 22 November 2021, while acting for clients A and B in relation to a probate dispute, knowingly provided false and misleading information to her clients and to Direct Line insurance company.

On various dates between around 1 June 2021 and 22 November 2021, while acting for clients C and D in relation to a probate dispute, she had: (i) knowingly provided false and misleading information to her clients and IDR Law Ltd; and (ii) failed to make client C aware of information material to the retainer.

Between around 11 August 2021 and 30 November 2021, while acting for client E in relation to a probate dispute, she had knowingly provided false and misleading information to her client.

Between 4 November 2020 and 30 December 2020, while acting for client F in relation to a dispute over the validity of a will, she had knowingly provided false and misleading information to client F.

In respect of each of the matters set out above, the respondent had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraphs 1.4 and 7.11 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent had admitted all the allegations, including that her conduct was dishonest in breach of principle 5.

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 annexed to the judgment.

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.

Given the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike her name from the roll.

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

On 17 January 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Julian Condliffe and the firm, Creative Legal Solutions Solicitors Ltd, of 63-66 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8LE, and Unit B, Brindley Close, Rushden NN10 6EN.

The grounds of intervention into the practice of Julian Condliffe were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Condliffe in connection with her practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).
• Condliffe had failed to comply with rules – paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974.

The grounds of intervention into Creative Legal Solutions Solicitors (the firm) were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Condliffe, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 32(1)(d) of schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).
• Condliffe, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and 2019 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and 2019, which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 – paragraph 32(1)(a) of schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Condliffe’s practising certificate was suspended as a result of the intervention.

Richard Thorpe of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.