Christopher Adriaan Robin Dickins

• Application 10369-2009
• Admitted 1980
• Hearing 1 June 2010
• Reasons 24 June 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Chris Dickins Solicitors, Grove House, Ealand, Crowle, North Lincolnshire DN17 4JD, should pay a fine of £10,000.

As at 9 June 2008 there existed unreconciled items of £33,247.58, in breach of rule 7(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; the respondent had failed to maintain accurate client ledgers, in breach of rule 32(1) of the rules; he had failed to maintain client account reconciliations on at least a five-weekly basis from April to June 2008, in breach of rule 32(7) of the rules; he had allowed a client account to be used as a banking facility, in breach of rule 15(ix) of the rules; he had failed to transfer costs from client to office account within a 14-day period of a bill of costs being provided to a client, in breach of rule 19(3) of the rules; he had allowed some transfers of costs to be made from client account to office account in breach of rule 19(x) of the rules; he had incorrectly withdrawn client monies from client account, in breach of rule 22(1) of the rules; and he had withdrawn monies from client account that exceeded the monies held for that client, in breach of rule 22(5) of the rules.

The SDT was concerned that it was the respondent’s second appearance before it and that his previous appearance had also related to breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules among other allegations. There had been no allegation of dishonesty, however the respondent’s behaviour had caused the SDT to consider whether it fell within the definition of recklessness such that he should no longer be entitled to practise. On the present occasion, taking into account the character evidence and written references provided, the SDT was prepared to allow the respondent to continue practising as a solicitor on the basis that he was pursuing a very narrow area of law, namely criminal law, which was funded by the Legal Services Commission. The SDT made it clear to the respondent that it would not wish him to practise outside that ambit nor indeed to handle any client money. The allegations were serious, particularly in light of the fact that it was the respondent’s second appearance before the SDT. At the previous hearing the SDT had said: ‘The respondent must however make sure in the future that his accounts were in order.’ The respondent had failed to do so and damage had been caused to the reputation of the profession as a result of his conduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed.