Bryan Robert Hardman and Sebastian Sgoluppi
- Application 10341-2009
- Hearing 7, 8 June 2010
- Reasons 28 June 2010
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1980), of Hardmans Solicitors, St Edmunds House, St Edmunds Road, Northampton NN1 5DY, and that the second respondent (admitted 2000), of the same address, should each pay a fine of £1,500.
The respondents had failed adequately to supervise and/or manage the activities and work of members of staff within their firm, contrary to rule 13 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules 1990; they had conducted themselves in a manner which had been likely to compromise or impair their duty to act in the best interests of their clients, contrary to rule 1(c) of the rules; they had acted in property transactions for the buyer and lender where there existed a conflict of interest or the potential for a conflict of interest; they had failed to disclose all relevant information to a client, namely the lender, in certain conveyancing transactions, that had been material to the lender’s business; they had failed to adhere to the provisions and instructions contained within parts 1 and 2 of the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook; they had acted in the same property transaction for the seller, buyer and lender without the written consent of the parties, contrary to rule 6 of the rules; and they had acted for both borrower and lender without first informing the lender in writing of their intention to act for seller, buyer and lender in the same transaction, contrary to rule 6(3) of the of the rules. The SDT had been particularly concerned at the failures to identify client to client transfers and conflicts of interest and to notify lenders of incentives. However, it accepted a number of mitigating factors: at the material time mortgage lenders had been extremely keen to lend both to investors and to purchasers; the respondents had reported the misuse of clients’ funds; they had replaced the money; and they had cooperated with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s investigation. Moreover, the whole matter had hung over the respondents for some four years and the SDT accepted their evidence of the enormous strain that it had caused them both. The SDT noted that the respondents’ firm had closed; that they both faced imminent bankruptcy and had no assets, having re-invested their profits into their firm; and that they had large debts. Although the respondents were both working, their earnings, at best, only covered their outgoings. The SDT considered that the matters before it were serious. However, it noted that in essence they related to the respondents’ failure to run a large-scale conveyancing operation effectively and were not matters which had caused the SDT to have any doubt as to the personal integrity or professional competence of either of the respondents. The SDT considered it important to stress that the respondents left it with their integrity intact, and that there was no question of any issue as to the protection of the public.
In the circumstances, the SDT considered that a fine was appropriate and ordered that both respondents pay a fine of £1,500. The SDT noted that the fine would have been larger but for the delay in bringing the allegations before it. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of £30,000 on the basis of joint and several liability, such order not to be enforced without the consent of the SDT.
