Decisions

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

While a solicitor/director at Lawrence Stephens Solicitors, he had, during an ongoing property transaction, sent an email to his client [A1] having edited the contents of the email chain to demonstrate that he had been more efficient in dealing with the client matter, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

During an ongoing property transaction, he had sent an email to his client [B1] (i) having edited the contents of the email chain which demonstrated that he had been more efficient in dealing with the client matter; and (ii) having falsified an email in the chain to Santander that suggested he had been progressing matters with them since 30 April 2021, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct.

During an ongoing property transaction [relating to clients C1/C2], he had instructed a trainee solicitor to edit the contents of an email chain to demonstrate that the firm had been more efficient in dealing with the client matter, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct.

During an ongoing property transaction he had sent an email to his client [D1/D2] having falsified an email in the chain which demonstrated that he had updated the client the previous day when he had not, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct.

During an ongoing property transaction he had sent an email to his client [E1/E2] having edited the contents of the email chain which demonstrated that he had been more efficient in dealing with the client matter, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct.

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 misconduct had taken place over a period of three months and against a background of personal difficulty. The difficulties experienced by the respondent did not however constitute exceptional circumstances.

Given the admission of dishonesty, and the absence of exceptional circumstances, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike him off the roll.

As a general observation, the SDT urged any solicitor whose work was being impacted by personal problems to seek timely and appropriate help before matters escalated beyond their control.

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

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

While a sole practitioner at MMC Solicitors, and while practising as a solicitor, between 10 May 2017 and 8 February 2020, the respondent had provided information to a client which informed her that legal proceedings in respect of a claim to recover outstanding rent arrears had been issued and were ongoing. That information was false, and the respondent knew it was false, and he thereby breached (i) principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; and (ii) principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 14 October 2019 and 8 February 2020, he had held himself out as a solicitor who was entitled to practise when he was not, by virtue of his practising certificate having initially been suspended on 20 September 2019, and thereafter expiring on 31 October 2019.

Between 14 October 2019 and 25 November 2019, he had breached principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles, and rule 9.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011.

Between 24 November 2019 and 8 February 2020, he had breached principles 2 and 5 of the 2019 Principles.

Between 15 November 2020 and 4 February 2021, he had provided information to the SRA that he had not undertaken any legal work or corresponded with any clients. That was false, and the respondent knew it was false, and he had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles.

Between 18 April 2017 and 4 February 2019, he had received money from a client into the firm’s Metro Bank business account which he had not: (i) kept separate from money belonging to himself or the firm, in breach of rule 1.2(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; (ii) kept safely in a bank or building society account identifiable as a client account in breach of rule 1.2(b) of the Accounts Rules 2011; and (iii) used only for that client matter, in breach of rule 1.2(c) of the Accounts Rules 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.

Given the serious and repeated nature of the respondent’s dishonest conduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike him off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,500.

The SDT ordered that the allegation against the respondent should be dismissed.

The allegation against the respondent was that, while employed as a trainee solicitor by Holland & Knight (UK) LLP, at an appraisal meeting with Robert Ricketts and Victoria Koob, he had represented (i) that he had not failed any LPC examinations, which was untrue in that he had failed an examination sat on 27 August 2019; and (ii) that he had not failed any LPC modules, which was misleading in that he had failed to mention a failed litigation examination sat on 27 August 2019.

In respect of the above, it was alleged that the respondent had acted dishonestly (or alternatively recklessly) and, accordingly, that he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and that his actions constituted conduct on his part of such a nature that it was undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

The case rested upon the recollection and memory of the witnesses, there being no objective contemporaneous record of the questions put to the respondent and the answers he had given in the meeting.

The SDT had reviewed the evidence and found that in the absence of a written record it could not find the allegations proved to the requisite standard. It dismissed all the allegations including dishonesty.

In reaching its decision, the SDT had given significant weight to the respondent’s evidence relating to his character which attested to his credibility and his lack of propensity to be dishonest.

There was no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 18 months from 30 June 2023. Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed by the SDT: (i) that he might not practise as a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm; (ii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; or (iii) hold or receive client money, or act as a signatory on any client or office account or have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account; (iv) the respondent had to complete a course from a third-party provider within 18 months covering the Solicitors Accounts Rules and provide proof of completion to the SRA within 28 days of completion, with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor and sole principal of Jesse Douglas & Aaskells Solicitors, the respondent had failed to make an application to the SRA to obtain prior approval to provide legal services through Jesse Douglas Solicitors Ltd before the company was incorporated on 26 March 2013, thereby breaching rule 1.1(c) of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011, and principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had failed to notify the SRA that the firm Jesse Douglas Solicitors Ltd of which he was the sole director and shareholder was in serious financial difficulty in that the company had received a warning of winding up action from HMRC dated 7 June 2017; a petition to wind up the company was issued by HMRC on 26 September 2017 and a resolution had been passed to wind up the company and appoint liquidators on 18 January 2018. He had thereby breached principles 6, 7 and 8 of the Principles, and failed to achieve outcome 10.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

He had failed to cooperate with an investigation by the SRA into his conduct in that he had failed to (i) respond fully to the SRA’s correspondence requesting information, documents and explanations; (ii) produce for inspection documents, papers, clients’ files and accounting records to the SRA when requested to do so; and (iii) comply fully with a production notice issued on 12 July 2019. He had thereby breached principles 2, 6 and 7, and failed to achieve outcomes 10.8 and 10.9 of the Code of Conduct.

He had failed to comply with (or to ensure the firm’s compliance with) the SRA Accounts Rules in that he failed adequately or at all to (i) keep his accounting records up to date and appropriately recorded; and (ii) undertake reconciliations when they fell due. He had thereby breached rules 1.2, 29.1, 29.2, 29.4 and 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules, and principles 6 and 10 of the Principles.

The respondent had acted with manifest incompetence.

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 conduct was so serious that there was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm by removing his ability to practise. That did not justify striking him off the roll, but it meant that he should be subject to indefinite conditions once a period of suspension for 18 months had ended.

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

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

While in practice as a partner, compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration at Haddock and Co, the respondent had (i) accepted a loan of £25,000 from his lay client, B, and had thereby acted where there was an own-interest conflict or a significant risk of an own-interest conflict and in doing so he had breached outcome (3.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and principles 2, 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; (ii) dishonestly caused or allowed the loan from B to be received into the firm’s client account, which was not in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction nor formed part of his normal regulated activities, thus allowing the client account to be used as a banking facility and breaching rule 14.5 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 2 and 6 of the Principles; and (iii) dishonestly prepared or caused to be prepared an agreement which was misleading in that it purported to show that the loan monies were a fixed fee relating to open files for B and which was backdated to 10 November 2017, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles.

The respondent was highly culpable in the matter, and the level of harm caused was high. The misconduct was so serious that a reprimand, fine or restriction order would not be a sufficient sanction to protect the public or the reputation of the profession from future harm by the respondent.

The usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off. The circumstances in which such a sanction was not imposed were exceptional, and the SDT considered whether the circumstances in the present case were exceptional. Reference had been made to the respondent’s health but no evidence had been adduced as to that. Specifically, there was no evidence that linked the ill-health to the dishonesty. There was no other exceptional circumstance advanced to or identified by the SDT. In the circumstances, the only appropriate sanction was that the respondent be struck off the roll.

There was no order as to costs.