Ian David Burton-Baddeley

• Application 10231-2009
• Admitted 1980
• Hearing 4 February 2010
• Reasons 7 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Warrington, Cheshire WA1, should pay a fine of £12,500.

The respondent had failed to maintain properly written up books of account, contrary to rule 32 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had transferred money out of client account when he was not authorised to do so, in breach of rule 15 of the rules; in respect of monies received in full or part settlement of a bill rendered by his firm, the respondent had failed to comply with the provisions of, and was thereby in breach of, rule 19 of the rules; in receiving payments comprised of both client money as well as office money, the respondent had failed to adhere to and was in breach of the provisions of rule 20 of the rules; he had permitted funds to be drawn from client account otherwise than in accordance with rule 22(1) of the rules, leading to a cash shortage; as a principal in his firm, the respondent had failed to inform clients of commission received over the prescribed amount, to pay to the clients the amount of commission received, or had sought the consent of the clients for his firm to keep the commission payments, such failures amounting to a breach of rule 2.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, leading to the generation of an undisclosed profit; he had conducted himself in a manner that was likely to compromise his integrity, contrary to rule 1(a) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and/or, where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.03 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had conducted himself in a manner which was likely to compromise or impair his duty to act in the best interests of his clients, contrary to rule 1(c) of the 1990 rules and/or, where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.04 of the code; and he had conducted himself in a manner which was likely to compromise or impair the good repute of the solicitors’ profession, contrary to rule 1(d) of the 1990 rules and/or where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.06 of the code.

The SDT found that the applicant had been irresponsible and had, in many cases, taken the lazy option as he had not needed the money that was involved. Once he had realised that there were balances on client account, he should have returned those monies to the clients and not raised bills and taken costs. Since then he had employed a well-qualified bookkeeper whom he had sent on an appropriate course and had now dealt with returning the monies to the clients. In addition, he had set up an accounting system that meant he was unlikely to find himself in the same difficulties again.

The SDT found the allegations to be serious but, in view of the mitigation put forward on the part of the respondent, and the fact that the practice was now run along better lines, coupled with the steps that the Solicitors Regulation Authority had taken to protect the public, a fine would be appropriate. However, were the respondent to find himself before the SDT in the future, he would be in very serious difficulties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,932.