Davinder Singh Bal

Thursday 25 February 2010

  • Application 10057-2008
  • Admitted 1997
  • Hearing 10 September 2009
  • Reasons 12 January 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Birmingham B17, should pay a fine of £10,000. The respondent had caused or had allowed a cash shortage of £83,521.50 on client account; contrary to rule 19(1)(b) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, he had failed to either ensure the payment of disbursements within two days of receipt of the funds or if not paid to transfer an equivalent sum for its settlement to client account; contrary to rule 32(1) of the rules, he had failed to maintain adequate accounting records; contrary to rule 7 of the rules, he had failed to rectify breaches of the rules promptly upon discovery; he had misinformed a client with respect to the payment of after-the-event insurance premiums; he had misled a third party’s insurers and the court by informing them that clients had entered into conditional fee agreements before they had; he had failed to inform clients or to inform them clearly of his relationship with a company known as ‘Medical Today’; contrary to rule 15 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and the Solicitors Client Care and Costs Information Code 1999, he had failed to provide adequate costs information to clients; and he had used misleading letter-headed notepaper, contrary to section 1 of the Solicitors Publicity Code 2001. The SDT was satisfied that the respondent had not at any time consciously sought to mislead either clients or third parties. Although recognising the respondent’s position as to retainers being from the outset on the basis of CFAs, the SDT agreed with the findings of previous tribunals that backdating by solicitors was not a trivial matter. It was not something that a solicitor should do because it had the potential to mislead. However, the SDT had taken into account the difficult situation faced by the respondent in 2005-2006, the subsequent revision of procedures and the delay in the proceedings.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,000.