Geoffrey David Owen

• Application 10724-2011
• Admitted 1980
• Hearing 28 September 2011
• Reasons 3 November 2011

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for twelve months to commence on 28 September 2011.

The respondent’s accounting records had not been kept properly written up, in breach of rules 1(e) and 1(f) and rule 32(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; his client ledgers had not been maintained, in breach of rule 32(2) of the rules; his client account reconciliations had not been carried out, in breach of rule 32(7) of the rules; monies had been withdrawn from client account in excess of the amount held for the clients on whose behalf the withdrawals were made, in breach of rule 1(c) and rule 22(5) of the rules; he had failed to rectify the breaches of the rules promptly on discovery, in breach of rule 7 thereof; he had failed to account to the Legal Services Commission, contrary to rule 1(d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and rule 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had failed to rectify the breaches of the rules promptly on discovery in breach of rule 7 thereof; and monies had been withdrawn from client account in excess of the amount held for the clients on whose behalf the withdrawals were made, in breach of rule 1(c) and rule 22(5) of the rules.

The SDT had found that the respondent’s behaviour had shown a blatant disregard for the Solicitors Accounts Rules, which were essential for the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession.

It was significant that the respondent’s accounts, when examined for the second time, showed new errors of the same type as were revealed in the original investigation. That indicated a lack of willingness on the respondent’s part, over a period of some years, to comply with the basic regulatory requirements. In view of the allegations that had been substantiated against the respondent, the SDT considered it appropriate that he should not be permitted to practise on his own account in the future.

In view of that, the SDT made a recommendation that upon the expiry of the fixed term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to a condition that he might not practise as a sole practitioner, partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice, alternative business structure or as a director of a limited company. For the avoidance of doubt, the respondent should only work as a solicitor in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.