Decisions

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

While in practice as a member of Bilmes LLP the respondent had, by allowing a minimum cash shortage of £1,767,322.15 as at 10 November 2017 to occur on the firm’s client account, breached principles 2, 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rule 20.9 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

By failing to remedy the minimum cash shortage of £1,767,322.15 on client account as at 10 November 2017 promptly or at all, he had breached principles 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10, and rule 7.1 of the rules. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 3 January and 26 October 2017, by improperly withdrawing or allowing to be withdrawn the minimum sum of £1,316,146.00 from the firm’s client account, he had breached principles 2, 6, 8, and 10, and rules 1.2(a) and (c), 20.1 and 20.3 of the rules. He had acted dishonestly.

From December 2016 at the latest, by failing to keep accounting records properly written up to show the firm’s dealings with client and office money, and failing to complete client account reconciliations at least every five weeks, he had breached principles 6, 7 and 8, and rules 29.1, 29.2 and 29.12 of the rules. He had acted dishonestly.

Between August 2016 (at the latest) and March 2017 (at the earliest), he had made statements to HM Revenue & Customs and/or client A in respect of an SDLT payment on behalf of client A in respect of their purchase of property A, which were untrue and which he knew, or ought to have known, were untrue at the time they were made, thereby breaching either or both of principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 15 September and 10 November 2017, by failing to redeem the mortgage in the sum of £431,902.13 in respect of client B in respect of property B, despite having received funds to enable him to do so, he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6.

Between June and 10 November 2017, by failing to redeem the mortgage in the sum of £150,433.93 in respect of client C in respect of property C, despite receiving funds to enable him to do so, he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6.

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 respondent’s admissions had been properly made with respect to each allegation, including dishonesty.

Having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct the SDT was satisfied with the sanction proposed by the parties, namely strike-off, which it considered was appropriate and proportionate to protect public confidence in the profession and to protect the public against the risk of further harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £18,600.

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

While in her capacity as owner and sole director of Linklaw Solicitors between January 2016 and 29 November 2019, the respondent had failed to act in the best interests of the executors and/or the residuary beneficiary of a client’s estate, in that she had: (i) overcharged the estate of Mr SC (deceased) by £35,537.50 plus VAT; (ii) charged the estate of Mr SC for reviewing 3,784 items, whereas the investigation conducted by the SRA suggested only 1,394 items had been reviewed; (iii) recorded an attendance of 6.5 hours for distribution of funds to the residuary beneficiary when the witness evidence of her co-executor and a representative of the residuary beneficiary both contradicted that; and (iv) delayed in the administration of the estate, failing to fully inform and/or update the residuary beneficiary appropriately and failing to provide it with sufficient information to enable it to satisfy itself that it had received its full entitlement, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2011, and principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019. She had acted dishonestly.

Between January 2015 and February 2016, the respondent had acted as both executor and conveyancer in the sale of Mr SC’s property, notwithstanding that she had a connection to the purchaser, Boscola. In the circumstances, there was a significant risk of conflict. She had thereby acted in breach of principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2011 Principles, and failed to achieve outcome 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

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

Having regard to the seriousness of the admitted misconduct, including dishonesty, the SDT was satisfied that the sanction proposed by the parties, i.e. strike-off, was appropriate and proportionate to protect public confidence in the profession and to protect the public against the risk of further harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £28,046.

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

While in practice as a solicitor and manager at Thursfields Legal Limited, the respondent had intentionally exposed his genitals intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress, resulting in (a) his conviction on 29 March 2022 at the West Dorset Magistrates’ Court of five offences contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and (b) his being sentenced on 28 April 2022 to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with conditions of (i) supervision for 24 months; (ii) a curfew requirement with electronic monitoring for 12 weeks daily between 9pm and 9am; (iii) a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days; (iv) 250 hours unpaid work to be completed within 12 months; and (v) a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years.

By reason of the above, he had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019, and principles 2 and 5, so far as the conduct had occurred on or after 25 November 2019.

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

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

His admitted conduct had been disgraceful and totally unbecoming of a member of the solicitors’ profession. The respondent had not provided any mitigation.

The case was not one in which the respondent’s behaviour had little or no nexus with his professional life. His criminal conviction was of a degree and nature entirely incompatible with maintaining the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public. The serious circumstances of the case required no lesser sanction than strike-off.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,850.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at JWP Solicitors, she had falsified the signatures of the trustees to the RABS Trusts on cheques made out to HMRC for £2,900 and for £3,517.81, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

While employed at KBL Solicitors, she had caused an improper withdrawal from the client account of the TM Will Trust in the sum of £8,891 and misappropriated the same to discharge a debt owed to HMRC in respect of the MEF Will Trust. She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 6 of the principles and rule 20.1 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

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 was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions were properly made with respect to each allegation, including dishonesty.

Having regard to the seriousness of the admitted misconduct, the SDT was satisfied with the sanction proposed by the parties, i.e. strike-off, which it considered was appropriate and proportionate to protect public confidence in the profession and to protect the public against the risk of further harm. The serious circumstances of the case required no lesser sanction.

While the misconduct had been deliberate, there was no apparent financial gain for the respondent other than to cover up the fact she had not acted in a timely way when dealing with client matters.

The misconduct had been replicated over many years and in different places where she had worked, and it had become ingrained behaviour on her part.

Given that there had been dishonesty over many years there was no alternative but for the ultimate sanction of strike-off to be imposed upon the respondent.

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

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

While in practice as the director, senior partner, COLP, COFA and sole shareholder of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited, the respondent had provided or facilitated and encouraged the provision of falsified documents to the Legal Aid Agency, including but not limited to client files, medical reports and tribunal decisions, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 in relation to patients 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, alleged clients of the firm. He had acted dishonestly.

He had encouraged, given instructions for and participated in the production of falsified documents, including but not limited to client files, medical reports and tribunal decisions, thereby acting in breach of principles 2 and 6, in relation to each of the above 14 alleged clients of the firm. He had acted dishonestly.

He had encouraged or given instructions for the falsification of documents regarding either both or one of patients 28 and 29, thereby acting in breach of principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

His conduct had caused significant harm, both to the reputation of the profession and to the public, who had financed his improper claims. The monies obtained from the LAA were public monies from taxpayers who funded the legal aid budget.

His conduct was aggravated by his proven dishonesty. It had been deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time.

The respondent’s dishonesty had been committed on an industrial scale. The nature of his misconduct was so serious that there could be no mitigating features. Given the profoundly dishonest nature of his conduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £72,676, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £30,000.

While at a club in Dover Street W1 attending a Society of Construction Lawyers lunch, the respondent had approached A, a solicitor previously unknown to him but who had also attended the SCL lunch, and on two separate occasions had made comments to A about her appearance including words to the effect of: (i) ‘you’re really fit, aren’t you?’; (ii) ‘you’ve got a great bum’; (iii) ‘look at your tits’, and (iv) ‘look at your boobs’.

He had touched A, including placing one or more of his hands on or around her waist area on one or more occasions.

He had ignored A’s repeated attempts to make clear to him that his actions were unwanted, by words and conduct, namely by removing his hand from her waist and telling him that she did not consent to him touching her in that way and making such comments.

His actions had been sexually motivated.

His conduct had amounted to a breach of principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

While his actions had initially been spontaneous, the respondent had been persistent. There was no evidence of a constructed effort to encounter A initially. A strike-off was not necessary in the present case, nor was a suspension from practice justified, taking account of the fact that the sexual harassment had taken place over a relatively short period of time and was not at the highest end of the scale of severity. There had neither been a power imbalance nor an abuse of position in the case and there had been no resulting criminal proceedings.

The appropriate and proportionate sanction was a fine of £52,000. There was a clear need, having regard to the reputation of the profession and to the protection of the public, for the message to be sent that such behaviour was completely unacceptable.

However, having assessed the respondent’s means, the level of the fine was reduced to £30,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £18,000.