Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2002) should pay a fine of £6,000. 

The SDT found the allegations against the second respondent not proved and made no order for costs against it.

It had been alleged against the first respondent that, while in practice as a solicitor at the second respondent, a firm, he had: (i) failed to obtain adequate information relating to the source of funds, as required by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, in relation to the expected settlement monies, thereby breaching principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; (ii) had authorised the outgoing transfer of part of the settlement monies, despite not being in possession of adequate information relating to the source of funds, as required by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, thereby breaching regulation 11, principles 6 and 7, and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the code; and (iii) had used a client account as a banking facility, thereby breaching rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 6 and 7 of the principles.

The first respondent had admitted all the allegations. The firm had denied all the allegations. The SDT, having determined that enhanced due diligence was not required in the circumstances of the case, found the allegations in relation to a breach of the MLRs not proved.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the first respondent’s admissions to the first two allegations against him, the SDT found those allegations not proved and thus dismissed them. The SDT found the third allegation proved on the facts and evidence, and determined that the first respondent’s admissions to it had been properly made.

The SDT accepted that the first respondent’s misconduct was inadvertent due to his lack of understanding of the application of rule 14.5. His misconduct had not been planned. He had caused harm to the reputation of the profession. There had been no financial loss to the client as a result of his misconduct.

In mitigation, it had been a single episode in an otherwise unblemished career. The first respondent had demonstrated remorse and insight; he had made admissions from the outset of the investigation and had maintained those admissions throughout the proceedings.

A financial penalty in the sum of £6,000 was an appropriate and proper reflection of the seriousness of his misconduct in all the circumstances.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor, the respondent had asked Client A to pay £292.50 to his personal bank account, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLS.

The respondent had created an invoice, which had never been provided to Mr and Mrs Client B, in the sum of £924, whereas actual costs due were £474, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7, and paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had received £450 in cash in relation to Mr and Mrs Client B’s matter, without providing any receipt or record of such payment, thereby breaching paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had asked Client C to pay £200 to his personal bank account, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7, and paragraphs 1.2 and 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 annexed to the judgment.

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, including the admission of dishonesty.

In doing so, the SDT had assessed the culpability and harm identified together with the aggravating and mitigating factors that existed.

In the circumstances, where dishonesty had been admitted and no exceptional circumstances had been put forward in mitigation, the case was not one where the SDT could reach any decision on sanction other than strike-off from the roll.

The tribunal made no order for costs.