Decisions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2003) and the second respondent (RFL 2002) should each be struck off the roll. The SDT ordered that the allegations against the third respondent (RFL 2013) and the fourth respondent (admitted 2005) should be dismissed.

The first respondent, while in practice as a solicitor at PG Solicitors trading as Edward Marshall, and the second respondent, while in practice as a registered foreign lawyer at the firm, had breached various provisions of the SRA Principles 2011; the SRA Principles 2019; the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019; the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019. They had acted dishonestly.

The allegations against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed. The third respondent had not been involved with the firm at the relevant time. The fourth respondent was a partner in name only with no true ability to influence any management or financial decisions made by the firm.

Because the first and second respondents had been found to have been dishonest, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the judgment of the Divisional Court in SRA v Sharma required that they be struck off the roll. There were no such exceptional circumstances and neither the first nor the second respondent had engaged in the proceedings to suggest that there were.

The conduct of the first and second respondents had not consisted of a fleeting or momentary lapse of judgment, but had rather been repeated misconduct involving dishonesty and misdirection by the use of forged documents. The SDT therefore ordered that they should each be struck off the roll.

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £54,905, on the basis of joint and several liability. No order as to costs was made in respect of the third and fourth respondents.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £20,000. While the respondent was in practice as a solicitor at Foys Solicitors Client B, who was the attorney for Client A under a lasting power of attorney for property and financial affairs, instructed the respondent to act in the purchase of four properties. Client B instructed the respondent to use £614,899 of Client A’s funds to purchase the properties and register them with Clients A and B as tenants-in-common resulting in Client A suffering a financial loss of £307,450. The respondent did not consider the issues arising from Client B instructing the respondent to give him half of Client A’s properties. By causing Client A to suffer a financial loss of £307,450 in those circumstances, the respondent had (i) breached principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; and (ii) failed to achieve outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

Client C, who was the attorney for Client A under an LPA for property and financial affairs, instructed the respondent to act in the purchase of a property by Client C. Client C instructed the respondent to use £155,000 of Client A’s funds to purchase the property and register the property with Client C and Client A as tenants-in-common, resulting in Client A suffering a financial loss of £77,500. The respondent did not consider the issues arising from Client C instructing the respondent to give her half of Client A’s property. By causing Client A to suffer a loss of £77,500 in those circumstances, the respondent had (i) breached principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Principles; and (ii) failed to achieve outcome 1.2 of the code.

The respondent had acted for Clients A, B, and C in circumstances where there was a conflict of interest resulting in Client A suffering a financial loss of £384,950. By acting in a conflict of interest that had a significant detrimental impact on Client A, the respondent had (i) breached principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Principles; and (ii) failed to achieve outcome 3.5 of the code.

The respondent had admitted all the allegations. The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations in accordance with the agreed statement of facts and outcome. The SDT had reviewed all the material and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that his admissions had been properly made. He had failed to recognise the matters that evidenced that there was a conflict or a significant risk of a conflict. The risk of harm to Client A was also significant, particularly in circumstances where Client A was vulnerable.

A financial penalty that fell within the SDT’s indicative fine band Level 4 (conduct assessed as very serious) adequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct having regard to that conduct, and the aggravating and mitigating features. Accordingly, the SDT approved the parties’ proposed sanction of a fine of £20,000. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,496.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,750. While in practice as a solicitor at MT UK Solicitors Ltd, the respondent had: (i) having been asked by Martin Tolhurst Solicitors for the firm’s client account details so that Tolhurst could make a payment in exchange for copies of conveyancing searches paid for and owned by his client KM, provided instead his personal bank account details to Tolhurst; (ii) received money from Tolhurst into his personal bank account;  and (iii) failed properly or at all to account for the money received from Tolhurst, which belonged to his client KM, thereby breaching rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The respondent’s motivation had been to act on the instructions of Mr T, his supervisor and a more experienced solicitor. That had been a spontaneous and ill-considered decision on the respondent’s part.

The respondent had been responsible for his misconduct. His level of experience was not great, yet he did have three-and-a-half years’ experience and he should have acted on his instincts and not allowed his bank details to be used. No dishonesty on the respondent’s part had been found.

It had been a single, relatively brief, episode in a previously unblemished career. The respondent had demonstrated genuine insight and remorse.

A fine of £7,750 was the most appropriate sanction for the protection of the public. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,513.