Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While in practice as a solicitor and subsequently a self-employed consultant at Worthingtons, between 2012 and 2018, the respondent had improperly transferred £19,289.54 from the client account, by creating or causing to be created three invoices which were not notified to the clients in writing or at all and which did not accurately reflect costs due including being for costs which had already been invoiced, thereby breaching rules 17.2 and 20 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; and outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 1993 and 2018, he had failed to bank or present for payment, or to account to those to whom he should have under the estate of SJC, dividend cheques for shareholdings and other remittances valued at around £70,000, thereby acting in breach of rule 1(a) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; rule 3 of Appendix 2a to the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991; Annex 28(B), rules 1(a), 1(c) and 15(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; rules 1.02, 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; rule 1.1, 6.1 and 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; and principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 and outcome 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

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 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 admission of dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no exceptional circumstances such that striking the respondent off the roll would be disproportionate. Accordingly, the SDT approved the sanction agreed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,650.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Morgan Hall Solicitors Limited, in relation to his client MS, the respondent had proposed a scheme to MS, the purpose of which was to conceal from the benefits authorities some of the money that MS was to gain from the payment of a judgment debt, so that MS would not lose his entitlement to benefits.

As part of that scheme, the respondent had drawn or caused to be drawn up a client care letter and conditional fee agreement, one or both of which were sham agreements in that the respondent did not intend to be legally bound by them and intended to repay in cash to MS part of the fees payable to the firm under the agreements. The respondent had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

In relation to his client EN, the respondent had permitted the firm to retain £86,308.83 of EN’s money in the firm’s client account, from the date her matter was substantially complete, in or around January 2013, until 4 October 2018, thereby failing to return EN’s money to her promptly as soon as there was no longer any proper reason to retain those funds. He had thereby breached rule 14.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

The respondent had failed to advise EN of the risks of lending £75,000 to TOO despite the existence of warning signs such as the high rate of interest promised, namely £555.55 per day, equating to around 270% per annum, thereby breaching principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The respondent had failed to protect EN’s money in that the legal charge over TOO’s property proposed to be taken as security was never executed and never registered with HM Land Registry, thereby breaching principle 10 of the 2011 Principles.

The respondent had acted contrary to EN’s interests in respect of the loan she had made to TOO by offering to arrange that her loan be repaid without interest and not disclosing to EN that to do so he would substitute Secure Reversions Limited (SRL), a company which he owned and controlled, in her place, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the 2011 Principles.

In relation to TOO, the respondent had caused SRL to lend £75,000 to TOO for a period of four weeks and represented to TOO that, to repay the loan, TOO was legally bound to pay SRL £125,000 when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The respondent had been motivated, in part, by personal gain. His actions had been planned. He had devised and suggested a scheme to his client which he knew amounted to benefit fraud.

The respondent’s conduct had caused immense harm to the profession, and was aggravated by his proven dishonesty.

None of the mitigation advanced on the respondent’s behalf was enough to bring him in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category referred to in the case of Sharma. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £31,180.