Decisions

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

The respondent, while in practice as a solicitor at Weightmans LLP, had represented that she was awaiting signed statements from witnesses, which was untrue in that she had not sent any draft statements; and had falsified emails in order to show that she had sent statements to witnesses on 15 and 20 April, when she had not. She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA’s Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent had falsely represented the reason for her departure from Weightmans; and had failed to inform Capsticks LLP of the true reason for her dismissal from Weightmans. She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The respondent’s motivation in relation to falsifying the emails had been an attempt to cover up the fact that she had not done the requested work. While her dishonesty about the status of her work had been spontaneous, she had then intentionally falsified emails to cover up her lack of work.

Further, her misconduct in relation to her application to Capsticks was a continuation of her previous misconduct in falsifying the emails, which had continued but for a relatively short period of time. The respondent had been motivated by her attempt to secure a new legal role.

The respondent’s dishonesty had caused harm to the reputation of the profession and, by being dishonest in her application to Capsticks, she had gained a job that she would not have otherwise been offered, therefore causing at least some harm to Capsticks as they had hired a person who they would not otherwise have hired.

The respondent had shown some level of genuine insight by promptly admitting the allegations and had also thereafter fully cooperated with the applicant. She had explained that she was ashamed and embarrassed about her misconduct, but at the time she had not appreciated its seriousness and the harm it had caused to the reputation of the profession.

Given the serious nature of the allegation of dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

There were no exceptional circumstances such that strike-off would be disproportionate.

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

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £8,500.

While in practice as a partner at McGlinchey & Co (firm 1) and as a sole practitioner in Harbord & Co (firm 2), the respondent had (i) used or allowed the use of firm 1’s client account as a banking facility in relation to the proceeds of sale of two properties for which he was the client, thereby breaching rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principles 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; and rule 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

He had (ii) failed to obtain and deliver accountant’s reports in accordance with the requirement to do so within six months at the end of the accounting period for any of the 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 accounting periods relating to firm 1, and any of the 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 accounting periods relating to firm 2, thereby breaching rule 32A.1(a) of the 2011 Accounts Rules; principle 8 of the 2011 Principles; failing to achieve outcome 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breaching rule 12.1(a) of the 2019 Accounts Rules and paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs (the 2019 code).

He had (iii) failed adequately to cooperate with, and respond to, the SRA’s enquiries and requests in respect of the provision of accountant’s reports for firms 1 and 2 and other information sought, and had thereby breached paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.10 of the 2019 code and principle 5 of the 2019 Principles. By reason of the matters set out above, in his capacity as the firm’s COFA, he had failed to ensure or take adequate steps to ensure compliance with the firm’s regulatory obligations under the 2011 and 2019 Accounts Rules; his obligations under rule 8.5(e)(i) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 and principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011; and his obligations under paragraphs 7.2 of the 2019 code and 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

The parties had agreed on the facts relating to the above allegations in their statement of agreed facts, and the respondent had fully admitted all the above allegations. The SDT had found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent had been given wrong and misconceived advice from his colleagues as to the appropriateness of retaining his money in the firm’s client account, but he was solely responsible for his own compliance with his regulatory obligations and for his misconduct.

He had been less than forthcoming or frank in relation to his assurances that he would be in a position to provide the overdue accountant’s reports for both firms 1 and 2.

He had caused harm to firms 1 and 2, and indeed to their clients, by failing to obtain the required accountant’s reports for those firms for several accounting years. His failure to cooperate with the applicant had been deliberate and had continued for a long period of time.

He had shown genuine insight into his misconduct by making full and open admissions.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £40,000, not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.