Dean Robert Auld, Tim Gorman, David Hamilton and Stephen McCourt
- Application 10009-2008
- Hearing 8 September 2009
- Reasons 23 December 2009
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1993) , of Gorman Hamilton Solicitors, Percy House, Percy Street, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PW, should pay a fine of £4,000; that the second respondent (admitted 1987) of the same address, should pay a fine of £4,000; that the third respondent (admitted 1991), of the same address, should pay a fine of £4,000; and that the fourth respondent (admitted 1994), of the same address, should pay a fine of £4,000. Contrary to rule 3 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990, the respondents had accepted introductions and referrals of business from other persons in breach of and otherwise than in compliance with the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990 ; contrary to rule 9 of the 1990 rules they had entered into arrangements for the introduction of clients and/or acted in association with an organisation who were not solicitors and whose business or part of whose business was to make, support or prosecute claims arising from death or personal injury, and who in the course of such business solicited or received contingency fees; contrary to rule 7 of the rules, they had shared fees with a person other than one permitted by that rule; and contrary to rule 1(a), (c) and (d) of the rules, they had failed to inform clients of payments made to introducers in respect of that client’s matter.
The facts relating to the present case were very different from those relating to earlier cases. The SDT had taken into account the cooperation of the respondents with the Legal Complaints Service as exemplified in the two letters before the SDT from the chief executive of the LCS. The SDT had also taken into account the extensive reparations that the partners had made and the references provided. The SDT had considered the case of Brooke, Hartley, Hodgson & Kaur but found that that case was different on its facts. In the present case, the distinctions were: (1) that miners had been provided with accurate information regarding costs; (2) Gorman Hamilton had fully cooperated with the LCS and the SRA; (3) while there had been a breach of the rules, clients had not suffered as a result, and indeed had been fully refunded any amounts deducted and had received interest on those amounts to ensure there was no loss; (4) clients’ interests had not been compromised and their claims had been pursued to ensure maximum recovery; and (5) clients had been fully aware of deductions being made. While the SDT accepted there were probably many miners who would never have pursued claims had it not been for the intermediaries making them aware of their positions, it was still essential for solicitors accepting work from such intermediaries to ensure there was proper compliance with the rules, which were in place for the protection of those clients. In this the present case, it had been careless of the respondents not to check the rules properly, and while the SDT accepted that clients had not suffered as a result of the breaches, the reputation of the profession had been damaged. The SDT was mindful that Gorman Hamilton had dealt conscientiously and in clients’ best interests with regard to their claims and gave the respondents credit for their honesty to clients. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the SDT considered the appropriate sanction was a financial penalty. As the respondents had stood shoulder to shoulder on the matter, the SDT saw no reason to order different punishments against each individual respondent.
Costs of £17,715 were to be paid by the respondents on a joint and several basis.
