Decisions

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

On or around 25 February 2020, the respondent had altered billing documents prior to a meeting at which he knew he would be questioned about his expenses, thereby breaching overseas principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Overseas and Cross-Border Practice Rules 2019.

During a meeting on 26 February 2020, he had represented that the alterations he had made to the billing documents immediately prior to the meeting had been made at the time he had first reviewed those documents, knowing that the representation was untrue, thereby breaching overseas principles 2, 4 and 5 of the rules.

The respondent had attempted to obfuscate his charging of personal expenses to the firm. While he had stated that he considered that when expenses were not charged to a client, they would automatically be charged to him personally, he had also stated that the marketing budget for the Athens office was for him to use as he saw fit and was effectively ‘part of his package’. This demonstrated, at the very least, a cavalier attitude to the appropriate treatment of expenses.

His misconduct had been aggravated by his proven dishonesty. It had been deliberate and calculated, albeit that the conduct had taken place over a relatively short period of time.

The misconduct related solely to his amendment of the documents and his failure to tell the truth about those amendments.

There were no circumstances that brought the respondent in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category referred to in 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 off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

The SDT ordered that the applicant’s application for restoration to the roll should be granted, subject to the following conditions imposed indefinitely by the tribunal: that the applicant might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body, or as a freelance solicitor, or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; (iv) hold client money; (v) be a signatory on any client account; (vi) practise/engage in conveyancing transactions; (vii) work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the SRA, with liberty to apply to the SDT to vary the above conditions.

The findings made against the applicant in 2012 were serious and demonstrated a number of failings on his part. He accepted, and the SDT agreed, that the appropriate sanction for that misconduct was for him to be struck off the roll.

The evidence provided of the applicant’s rehabilitation was to his credit. He had been undertaking legal work (albeit in an unregulated environment) for a significant period. He had provided a number of references which attested to the standard of his work, such references being from other legal professionals.

The applicant had undertaken a number of courses to keep up to date with developments, and had provided a copy of a letter in which the firm had offered him employment as an assistant solicitor in the event his application for restoration was successful.

The applicant had demonstrated that he would be properly supervised if he were to be restored to the roll and that the firm had adequate safeguards in place to ensure that there would be no repetition of his previous misconduct. Appropriate conditions would ensure that if the applicant were to gain employment with another firm, members of the public would still be protected.

In order to ensure that the applicant would be properly supervised irrespective of his employer, the SDT had determined that he should only be permitted to work in employment that had been approved by the SRA.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £2,002.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for an indefinite period from 15 March 2023.

Between 6 January 2020 and 16 December 2020, the respondent practised as a solicitor while bankrupt, despite the automatic suspension of her practising certificate, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

From 2 January 2020 onwards, she had failed to notify the SRA that she was subject to a bankruptcy order, thereby breaching rule 7.6(b) of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and principles 2 and 5. The respondent was exclusively and highly culpable. The harm she had caused to the reputation of the solicitors’ profession was significant. Her misconduct was aggravated by the fact that: (i) it was deliberate and calculated or repeated; (ii) it had continued over a period of time; and (iii) she had sought to conceal the fact of her bankruptcy by not notifying the applicant of the same.

No mitigating factors had been found and the SDT had therefore assessed the level of misconduct as being so serious that there was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm from the respondent by suspending her from practice.

In circumstances where the allegations were predicated upon the respondent having practised without authorisation by virtue of her bankruptcy, she should not be eligible to practise until the bankruptcy had been discharged. There was a realistic prospect that she would, in time, be able to do so. The onus remained upon her to apply to the SDT for the termination of the indefinite suspension if and when she was discharged from bankruptcy, supported by evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the application for consideration of the SDT.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,350.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Barnes & Partners, the respondent had failed to progress client A’s case adequately or at all, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and had failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

He had made false representations to client A about the progress that was being made on the case, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

The SDT had been unable to ascertain the respondent’s motivation for his wholesale failure to progress client A’s matter, and thereafter repeatedly lying to client A about the progress of his case. His actions had clearly been planned.

The respondent had caused significant harm to client A. As a result of his failings, client A had been prevented from pursing a claim for a substantial amount of money; the failure to progress the case had led to client A’s claim being struck out.

The respondent’s conduct was aggravated by his proven dishonesty. It had been deliberate, calculated and repeated, and had continued over a period of time.

The SDT had not found any circumstances (and indeed none had been submitted) that were enough to bring the respondent 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, in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the provision of legal services, was to order that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,950.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Smith Jones (Solicitors) Ltd, the respondent had: (i) informed Mrs JH that her claim was ongoing when she knew or ought to have known that that was not the case; and (ii) she had failed to inform Mrs LB that her case had been struck out and that an order for costs had been made against her.

By the above conduct, the respondent had breached principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019. Her conduct was dishonest.

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.

The respondent had failed to provide her clients with proper information on more than one occasion. With regard to Mrs LB, that situation had persisted for over two years. She had attempted to conceal from her clients the real status of their matters. She had knowingly misled her clients over a sustained period of time. Her conduct was aggravated by her proven and admitted dishonesty.

In the light of the respondent’s dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike her off the roll. The SDT had not found, and indeed it had not been submitted, that there were any exceptional circumstances such that a strike-off would be inappropriate. The parties agreed that a strike-off was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances.

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 at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, the respondent had contacted the Co-operative Bank by email and stated it had failed to follow his instructions to make a transfer of his funds in circumstances where he knew that statement to be false, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had created or caused to be created a false letter purporting to be from the bank stating that the sum of £189,472.36 was held in his bank account in circumstances where he knew that: (i) the bank had not sent him a letter in these terms; and (ii) he did not hold £189,472.36 in his bank account, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had created or caused to be created a false letter purporting to be from the bank which stated that the bank was in contact with the Financial Conduct Authority and that a transfer of his funds would be made within 14 days in circumstances where he knew that was not true, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had created or caused to be created a statement of account purportedly from the bank showing a credit balance of £189,387.93 on an account held with the bank when he knew that he did not hold those funds in any account he held with the bank, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had created up to 16 misleading emails which purported to show correspondence with the bank which had not taken place, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had created up to six false emails which purported to show correspondence with the Financial Ombudsman which had not taken place, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had created up to four false emails which purported to show correspondence with the Financial Conduct Authority which had not taken place, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

The respondent’s conduct was dishonest.

The misconduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated and had taken place over an extended period of time. There had been significant concealment of the initial wrongdoing by compounding it with further wrongdoing.

The matters were aggravated by the respondent’s dishonesty.

The respondent had not advanced exceptional circumstances and the SDT had found none, therefore the only appropriate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The protection of the public and of the reputation of the profession demanded nothing less.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £19,700.