Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal) include:
Fawzia Amtul-Habib Shuttari
Applications 9132-2004 &
8639-2002;
Admitted 1984;
Hearing 8 December 2005;
Reasons 8 February 2006
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ordered that the respondent, of Shuttari Paul & Co, 33-35 South Road, Southall, Middlesex UB1 1SW, should be struck off the roll.
The allegations against the respondent, all of which were substantiated, were that: she had failed to reply, alternatively failed with reasonable expedition to reply, to correspondence and enquiry addressed to her by clients, other solicitors and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (as was); had been guilty of delay in the execution of instructions of clients when acting in the capacity of a solicitor; had been guilty of improper, alternatively reckless, conduct in relation to a 1991 conveyancing transaction; had acted contrary to the provisions of practice rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 in failing to act in the best interests of her client; had acted in a conveyancing transaction where there existed a conflict of interest; and, by virtue of each and all of the aforementioned allegations, had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor.
It had been said on the respondent’s behalf that the matters before the SDT had occurred when she had been under extreme personal and professional pressure.
The SDT had heard oral evidence from a psychiatrist who had obtained a medical history, and had had the opportunity of assessing the respondent on two assessments.
However, he had not been able to give any direct evidence as to the respondent's mental state at the relevant time. Notwithstanding, the SDT accepted that the respondent had to have been under enormous pressure at the relevant time.
The evidence showed a repeated pattern over many years of a failure to respond to correspondence from fellow professionals, clients, and the respondent’s own professional body. Given the volume and the extent of the complaints, the SDT considered that serious professional concerns about the respondent’s ability to practise had been raised.
In reaching its determination, the SDT was conscious of the lapse of time since the events had occurred, and had read the testimonials put before it. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,300 costs.
William Davison and Peter Sinclair Shipston
Application 9260-2005;
Hearing 13 December 2005;
Reasons 13 February 2006
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1979), of 7 Bournemouth Drive, Dalton-le-Dale, Seaham, Co Durham SR7 8HB, should be suspended from practice for six months to commence on 13 December 2005, and that the second respondent (admitted 1965), of 40 Collingwood Crescent, Darras Hall, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 9DZ, should be struck off the roll for unbefitting conduct in that they had paid their own funds into client account, contrary to rule 13(xii) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; had withdrawn money from client account contrary to rule 22(i); had used clients’ funds for their own purposes; had maintained debit balances in client account, contrary to rule 22(5); had failed to keep accounting records up to date, contrary to rule 32; had made round-sum transfers, contrary to rule 19; had maintained suspense accounts, contrary to rule 32(16); and had failed to remedy the breaches of the rules, contrary to rule 7.
It was further alleged and substantiated against the second respondent that he had failed to comply with rule 15 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990.
Against the second respondent, the applicant put the case as one of dishonesty with regard to the first and third allegations. The SDT had found that the second respondent’s conduct had been dishonest. It had concluded that on the evidence presented, the first respondent was less culpable than the second respondent.
Even so, the allegations substantiated against him were serious. The tribunal had taken into account the first respondent’s competence and integrity, and the service which he had given to his local community.
In setting the period of suspension, the SDT had taken into account the fact that the first respondent had already suffered a period of time when he had been out of practice. It recommended to the Law Society that the first respondent should in the future be permitted to practise only in approved employment.
The first respondent was ordered to pay £9,340 costs, and the second respondent was ordered to pay £18,680 costs.
Eric Ashley Bell
Application 9345-2005;
Hearing 24 January 2006;
Reasons 20 February 2006
The SDT refused the application of the applicant, of Lesbury House, Windmill Hill, Ellington, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 5HU, that his suspension from practice as a solicitor for an indefinite period which began on 6 June 2000 be terminated. The applicant had not appeared at the hearing of the application, and no evidence had been called. The SDT considered that it had no power to deal with an application for the determination of an indefinite suspension on the papers.
Its rules of procedure made no such provision, and it was well established by custom and practice that such an application be dealt with at an oral hearing. One of the purposes of an oral hearing was to give the SDT an opportunity to see the applicant for itself in order that it might make its own evaluation of him.
While the applicant had indicated that he did not consider that the determination of his period of his suspension would put the public in danger, he did not appear to have addressed in any detail the effect that that would have on the good reputation of the profession.
The SDT was also concerned that the applicant had not addressed the fact that he had appeared before it on an earlier occasion, in 1997. The applicant had not been working in a solicitor’s practice; he had provided no support for his application from other members of the profession; and he had provided no evidence that he had overcome his mental ill-health or that there had been any improvement to difficulties he had suffered in his life.
In the absence of all that information, which the SDT considered to be vital if it was to protect the public and the good name of the profession, it considered it both just and proportionate to refuse the application.
It behoved the applicant to consider carefully the guidelines set out above.
Andrew Jonathan Crossley
Application 9346-2005;
Admitted 1991;
Hearing 2 February 2006;
Reasons 6 March 2006
The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Merriman White Solicitors, 14 Tooks Court, London EC4A 1LB, should pay a fine of £1,000 for unbefitting conduct in that he had failed to deliver to the Law Society his accountant’s report for the 12-month period ended 31 December 2002 (due by 30 June 2003); had failed to deliver to the Law Society his accountant’s report for the six-month period ended 3 June 2003 (due by 31 December 2003); and had failed to deliver to the Law Society his accountant’s report for the six-month period ended 31 December 2003 (due by 29 February 2004).
The SDT said that the failure of a solicitor to file accountant reports prevented the Law Society from fulfilling its important regulatory function.
The SDT had taken into account the difficulties from which the respondent suffered and accepted that his serious illness was a strong mitigating factor.
The fact remained that the outstanding issues had not been resolved. The SDT pointed out to the respondent that those issues required to be resolved and any failure on his part to achieve that would place him in continuing breach. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,348 costs.
Richard Anthony Chadwick
Application 9279-2005;
Admitted 1971;
Hearing 19 January 2006;
Reasons 15 February 2006
The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Lime Tree Farm, Fressingfield Road, Laxfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP13 8EN, should pay a fine of £1,000 for unbefitting conduct in that he had failed to comply with a direction of the adjudication panel of the Law Society dated 20 January 2005, pursuant to schedule 1A of the Solicitors Act 1974.
It further ordered that the direction of 20 January 2005 be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were an order of the High Court. The SDT recognised that the failure of a solicitor to comply in every respect and in due time with a direction made by his own professional body was a matter that caused anxiety and frustration to the client concerned, and could only damage the good reputation of the profession.
A solicitor in respect of whom an inadequate professional services award had been made had to deal with it in the appropriate manner and any failure by him in that respect was to be regarded by the SDT as serious. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,000 costs.
SOLICITOR’S CLERK
Adesina Ojelade
Application 9304-2005;
Hearing 19 January 2006;
Reasons 15 February 2006
The SDT ordered that as from 19 January 2006 no solicitor, registered European lawyer or incorporated solicitor’s practice should, except in accordance with permission in writing granted by the Law Society for such period and subject to such condition as the Society may think fit to specify in the permission, employ or remunerate in connection with the practice of a solicitor, registered European lawyer or member, director or shareowner of an incorporated solicitor’s practice Adesina Ojelade of 60 Bondfield Road, Beckton, London E6 5TS, a person who was or had been a clerk to a solicitor.
The allegation was that the respondent had acted in a matter personally without the knowledge or authority of his employer when he represented an asylum claimant at a bail hearing at a time when that claimant was not a client of his employer firm, and/or that he had represented to the Immigration Appeal Authority that he was acting in the particular matter under the supervision of his employer firm, when that firm was not instructed in the matter.
The SDT had found the first part of the allegation to have been substantiated. It had not found the second part of the allegation to have been proved.
The SDT accepted that the respondent was unwell on the day in question and that this might well have affected his judgement. It recognised that the respondent had been ‘bounced’ into the situation in which he had found himself. He had agreed to undertake advocacy on behalf of a client, having been instructed by a senior member of staff at the firm that employed him, and it was only on his way to the court that he had discovered that in fact the client was a client of another firm for whom the senior additionally undertook work.
His serious error of judgement was to continue to represent the client who was not a client of his firm. The respondent was ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed.
