Decisions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at RHJ Devonshire Ltd, the respondent had signed a statement of costs, to be filed with the Business and Property Court and served on his opponent in litigation, which he knew included a claim for time that he had not worked, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent had given evidence in arbitration proceedings concerning that statement of costs dated 4 December 2019 which he knew, or should have known, to be untruthful at the time it was given, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the principles and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

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 SDT had noted all the matters set out within the non-agreed mitigation and had observed that it was to the respondent’s credit that he had made full admissions, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings.

However, notwithstanding those matters, the present case was not one where the SDT could find or be directed to any exceptional circumstances such to permit it to reach any decision on sanction other than strike-off.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,650.

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

Between 27 May 2016 and 9 January 2019, the respondent had possessed criminal property, namely credits totalling £63,770 and €21,955, knowing or suspecting it to represent, in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly, the proceeds of criminal conduct, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The SRA relied upon the respondent’s conviction on 8 November 2021 for possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as evidence that she was guilty of that offence and the findings of fact upon which that conviction was based as proof of the underlying facts.

The respondent had admitted those allegations.

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.

A criminal conviction, particularly one involving the acquisition of criminal property, namely cash, through the supply and distribution of drugs was of utmost seriousness and the damage to the reputation of the profession was self-evident.

The respondent’s misconduct could only be viewed as extremely serious and that fact, together with the need to protect the reputation of the legal profession, required that strike-off from the roll was the only appropriate sanction.

There was no order for costs.