Andrew Thomas Watson

• Application 10756-2011
• Admitted 1994
• Hearing 9 November 2011
• Reasons 22 December 2011

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £4,000.

In relation to a complaint made by client A, the respondent had failed to respond to correspondence from the Legal Complaints Service dated 17 February 2010, 11 March 2010 and 1 April 2010 and from the Solicitors Regulation Authority dated 13 July 2010 and 20 September 2010, contrary to rule 20.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; in relation to a complaint made by client B, he had failed to respond to correspondence from the LCS dated 30 March 2010, 22 April 2010 and 5 May 2010 and from the SRA dated 8 July 2010 and 28 July 2010, contrary to rule 20.05; in relation to a complaint made by client C, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 18 June 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client D, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 13 May 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client E, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 29 May 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client F, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 19 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client G, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 19 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client H, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 26 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client I, he had failed to comply within the period required with an adjudicator’s decision dated 28 July 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession; and in relation to a complaint made by client J, he had failed to comply within the period required with an adjudicator’s decision dated 2 July 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession.

The SDT said that in the present case a number of members of the public had been affected by the respondent’s conduct and the profession had therefore suffered reputational damage. The respondent had done himself a significant favour by producing his statement, albeit belatedly. The statement, together with the oral submissions, had explained the circumstances to the SDT. The respondent had been overwhelmed by the volume of work he had taken on.

The business model he had adopted when taking on work referred by LC, an organisation which had had an arrangement with the respondent’s firm under which it would refer work in connection with loans taken out by lay clients where there might have been ‘secret commission’ payments made by lenders to financial advisors, had been potentially dangerous and it had proved to be so when LC and the administration company had gone into administration. The SDT noted that there had been no complaints against the respondent since 2010. The SDT had to mark the seriousness of the numerous matters in which he had failed to respond and deal with orders made by the adjudicator. Balanced against that was the fact that the complaints and orders in question had arisen in a comparatively short period and did not reflect a pattern of behaviour over a prolonged period of time.

The SDT took account of the fact that the respondent had turned his business around, had adopted a sustainable and appropriate business model and was now taking steps to pay the various outstanding sums. The respondent had not submitted a statement concerning his financial position. However, on the information submitted it was clear that whilst he was not affluent, his practice was generating an income. In the light of the respondent’s submissions, and the SRA’s acceptance that the respondent had been co-operative and was taking steps to pay the sums due, the SDT determined that a financial penalty was appropriate and that a reasonable and proportionate sanction was the imposition of a fine of £4,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,301.