Bryan William Burton

• Application 10279-2009
• Admitted 1962
• Hearing 4 March 2010
• Reasons 3 June 2010

The SDT ordered that the direction made by the adjudicator of the Legal Complaints Service dated 31 July 2008 for the repayment of money pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(d) of Schedule 1A to the Solicitors Act 1974 in the sum of £531.83 plus VAT to the estate of DMB should be treated for the purposes as if it were contained in an order of the High Court, pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 1A to the Solicitors Act 1974. The SDT further ordered that the respondent, of Helston, Cornwall TR12, should pay a fine of £1,500. The SDT further ordered that unless the respondent filed with the Solicitors Regulation Authority the outstanding accountant’s report for the six-month period ending 31 March 2008 by 4 June 2010, he should be suspended indefinitely.

The respondent had failed to deliver promptly, or at all, an accountant’s report for the six-month period ending 31 March 2008, which report had been required by 31 May 2008, as required by section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and the rules made thereunder; he had failed to comply promptly, or at all, with directions made by an adjudicator of the LCS to pay compensation to a complainant; and he had failed to deal with correspondence from the Solicitors Regulation Authority in an open, prompt and cooperative way, or at all. The SDT noted that there were matters outstanding relating both to the delivery of an accountant’s report and to compliance with directions made by an adjudicator. Moreover, there still appeared to be monies in the firm’s client account, namely a balance of some £20,000. The SDT was extremely concerned that the respondent appeared to be dismissive of his obligations both to his clients and to his regulatory body. The SDT stressed that it was essential for the protection of the public and in order to uphold the reputation of the profession that all solicitors dealt with correspondence from the SRA in an open, prompt and co-operative way. Had the respondent done so, the SDT considered that the matters could have been dealt with without the need for proceedings. After a telephone call in May 2009, the SDT noted that the SRA had sent copies of all the letters which the respondent had said that he had discarded. The SDT was satisfied that from that date, at the latest, the respondent had been fully aware of the outstanding matters that he needed to deal with. The SDT stressed that it was important and essential that the respondent now dealt with those matters.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,924.