Decisions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1988) should pay a fine of £7,501, and further that he should be subject to the following restrictions on practice for an indefinite period: (i) that he might not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body; (ii) that he might not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body, or head of legal practice (HOLP) or head of finance and administration (HOFA) in any authorised non-SRA firm; and (iii) that he might not hold, receive, or have access to client money, act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise electronic transfers from any client or office account, with liberty to apply to vary or discharge those conditions.

The SDT ordered that the second respondent (admitted 1994) should be struck off the roll.  

The first respondent, while practising as a solicitor and a manager at Fuglers (in association with David Berens & Co) LLP, had caused or allowed the transfer of £129,827.22 of client money belonging to client A and client B to pay the SDLT owed by client C, without the consent of clients A and B, thereby breaching rules 1.2(c) and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Upon discovering that money belonging to clients A and B had been used to pay the SDLT owed by client C, he had failed to notify clients A and B promptly, thereby failing to achieve outcome 7.11 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, and principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019.

He had caused or allowed the transfer of £95,012 from the firm’s client account to clients F and G when they were not entitled to those funds, thereby breaching rules 1.2(c) and 20.

He had failed to manage the firm’s bank accounts in accordance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, thereby breaching rules 1.2(a), 1.2(c), 14.3, 17.2, 17.3, 18.3, 20.1, 20.3 and 29.12 of the 2011 Accounts Rules, and principles 4, 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles.

The second respondent, while practising as a solicitor at Fuglers (in association with David Berens & Co) LLP, had caused or allowed the transfer of £129,827.22 of client money, belonging to client A and client B, to pay the SDLT owed by client C, without the consent of clients A and B thereby breaching rules 1.2(c) and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had received £10,800 in his personal bank account from client C in circumstances in which he knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to receive it thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles.

The parties had invited the SDT to approve the agreed outcome on the basis of a statement of agreed facts.

The SDT was satisfied that the first respondent’s misconduct fell within the range where a financial penalty was appropriate, and that the level of fine was appropriate. It agreed that the proposed conditions were necessary for the protection of the public and that they were proportionate in all the circumstances.

In respect of the second respondent, the only appropriate sanction was that he be struck off the roll. No exceptional circumstances had been advanced and the SDT had identified none from its careful consideration of the material before it. It took note of the fact that he had already been struck off in Ireland.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500. The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for six months from 21 March 2023. Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed indefinitely by the SDT: that she might not (i) act as a manager or owner of any authorised body, authorised non-SRA firm or legal services body; (ii) subject to that condition, she might act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the role has first been approved by the SRA; (iii) provide legal services as a freelance solicitor offering reserved or unreserved services on her own account under regulations 10.2 (a) and (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations 2; (iv) act as a COLP or COFA for any authorised body, or HOLP or HOFA in any authorised non-SRA firm; that she should (v) keep her professional commitments under review and limit her practice in accordance with any medical advice; and that (vi), for the purposes of complying with condition 2.2 above, she should disclose any relevant medical advice to her employer; with liberty to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While practising as a solicitor at North Ainley Solicitors, the respondent had made false and misleading statements in an email in an attempt to obtain documents relating to a client matter, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with an agreed outcome.

The respondent had admitted that her conduct had been dishonest. Sanctions such as a reprimand, financial penalty or suspension did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The SDT then considered whether there were exceptional circumstances such that striking her from the roll would be disproportionate.

From the medical evidence submitted as to her state of mind at the time of her misconduct, the SDT noted that the misconduct was a moment of madness in an otherwise unblemished career. Further, the respondent had made immediate admissions. Harm had been caused to the reputation of the profession by the admitted misconduct.

The present case was one that fell within the exceptional circumstances bracket such that striking the respondent from the roll would be disproportionate to her misconduct. The proposed sanction of a suspension for six months with indefinite conditions adequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct and provided protection to the public from future harm by the respondent. It also protected the reputation of the profession.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,800.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Pinney Talfourd the respondent had sent a letter to clients A and B which: (i) contained a false assertion that the Office of the Public Guardian had been in possession of client A and B’s registration documents for several months, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and failing to achieve outcome 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019; and (ii) was capable of giving a misleading impression as to the reason for the completion of a further registration form, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5, and failing to achieve outcome 1.4 of the code.

She had sent a letter to client C which was capable of giving a misleading impression as to the reason for the completion of a further registration form, breaching principles 2 and 5.

She had acted recklessly.

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 had been properly made.

Given the respondent’s admission that her conduct had been dishonest, the SDT had determined that striking her name from the roll was proportionate and appropriate in all the circumstances. It had not found (and indeed it had not been submitted) that there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction.

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 a solicitor and sole practitioner at Salam & Co Solicitors Ltd and while advising client A on a possible visa application for her husband, he had introduced her to an accountant for the purposes of her obtaining false documentation to support the application, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

Given the serious finding of dishonesty, it was plain to the SDT that other measures such as making no order, imposing a reprimand, financial penalty, restrictions on the respondent’s practice or a term of suspension from the roll were neither appropriate nor proportionate.

The SDT found no exceptional circumstances either in the submissions that had been advanced by the respondent nor evident on the face of the papers, and accordingly the only sanction which sufficiently met the overarching public interest was an order striking the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £68,374.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £45,000, and further that he should be subject indefinitely to the following condition: that he might not act as a compliance officer for finance and administration for any authorised body, or head of finance and administration for any authorised non-SRA firm, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary that condition.

While in practice at Metis LLP and then Metis Law Ltd the respondent had acted for both buyers and sellers on a property development scheme, giving rise to actual and/or significant risks of conflict of interest, thereby failing to achieve outcome 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and breaching principles 2, 6, and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had provided banking facilities through a client account (that of W), in that he had allowed payments into and transfers and withdrawals from the account, that were not in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction or to a service forming part of his normal regulated activities, contrary to rule 14.5 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 6 and 8.

The respondent’s motivation was essentially the financial advancement of the firm by having and holding on to a client of W’s stature. That objective had clouded his judgement and led him into error.

In allowing the risk of conflict to occur he had departed from normal practice and had breached the trust placed in him by his buyer clients, to whom he had owed his primary duty. The damage to the reputation of the profession by such misconduct was significant and was aggravated by the fact that the conduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of many months.

However, to his credit, he had not sought to blame others. He had voluntarily self-reported to the regulator. The misconduct had been a single episode, spread over a period of time, in a previously unblemished career. By his partial admissions, the respondent had shown some insight into his conduct.

The overall seriousness of the misconduct was very high in the circumstances, where obvious risk of conflict had become actual risk and significant sums of client money had been put in jeopardy.

The appropriate level of fine would be in the sum of £45,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £29,602.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for the period of 12 months to commence on 7 February 2023. 

The respondent had knowingly sent or caused to be sent two letters to the tenant of his client, which implied that the notices to quit enclosed with each were the same when in fact they were not, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The respondent was a highly experienced solicitor who was an expert in his field of agricultural law. While he had followed a practice which he had regarded as commonplace in his field, as he himself acknowledged with the benefit of hindsight, his actions had amounted to a ‘spoof’, ‘trick’, ‘ruse’ and ‘sharp practice’ – an attempt to ‘disguise’ the service of differing multiple notices to quit. He had thereby sought to take advantage of the tenant, whom he knew to be elderly.

He had caused harm both to the reputation of the profession and to the tenant and his family.

The misconduct was such that the respondent had fallen far short of the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor. A suspension from the roll for 12 months reflected the gravity of his misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £9,000.