Andrew Derrick John Farmiloe

• Application 10257-2009
• Admitted 1975
• Hearing 2 February 2010
• Reasons 7 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of London N20, should be struck off the roll. The respondent had recklessly breached the terms of rule 1 (a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and/or rule 1 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, in that he had acted contrary to the terms of a trust of which he was a trustee; he had breached the terms of rule 1 (c), (d) and (e) of the rules and/or rule 1 of the code in that he had signed cheques in excess of funds held; he had recklessly breached the terms of rule 1 (a), (c), (d) and (e) of the rules and/or rule 1 of the 2007 code in that he had assured and/or had given comfort to clients and/or investors, that there had been no or little risk in the scheme with which he had been involved, when he had not understood how the scheme worked, and in particular at the time the assurances and/or comfort had been given, there had been less money available to withdraw than had originally been deposited; he had recklessly breached the terms of rule 1 (a), (c), (d) and (e) of the rules and/or rule 1 of the code in that he had acted and/or had involved himself in a scheme which had exhibited characteristics of fraudulent transactions; and he had breached the terms of rule 1(d) of the rules and/or rule 1 of the code, in that he had failed and/or delayed in notifying his fellow members of a claim of which he had become aware.

The SDT had found the respondent to be a credible and not an ill-intentioned witness. However, he had clearly failed in his role as a trustee. By releasing funds when an appropriate guarantee had not been arranged for the protection of the investors, the SDT was satisfied that the respondent had acted recklessly. Misguidedly, he had put his concerns to make the scheme operational before his responsibilities as a trustee. His actions, while carried out when he was subject to many pressures, had been heedless of their probable consequences. His involvement as a solicitor and as a trustee had been an assurance to investors that the scheme would be carried out as presented in the key features document. Indeed, the respondent had admitted that he had been mainly responsible for the drafting of the key documentation. The SDT was satisfied that the scheme itself had exhibited characteristics of fraudulent transactions, which was not to say that it was fraudulent but as such, the respondent should have been alerted to be extremely meticulous in his professional duties both as a solicitor and as a trustee. In that he had failed.

While expressing sympathy for the respondent, the SDT considered that it was necessary for the protection of the public that he be struck off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,000, but such order was not to be enforced without the leave of the SDT.