John William East and Marian Clift

• Application 10171-2009
• Hearing 20 April 2010
• Reasons 18 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1980), of NE Law, 25 Military Road, Chatham, Kent ME4 4JG, should pay a fine of £10,000; and that the second respondent (admitted 2002), of the same address, should also pay a fine of £10,000. The respondents had breached rule 23 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, by virtue of the operation of client account internet banking by Ian Kevin Norman; they had failed to maintain properly written up books of account, contrary to rule 32 of the rules; they had breached rule 22 of the rules, by virtue of improper payments from client account made by Ian Kevin Norman using client account internet banking; they had failed adequately to supervise their employee Ian Kevin Norman, contrary to rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and, since 1 July 2007, contrary to rule 5 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; and they had failed to deliver to the Solicitors Regulation Authority their accountant’s report for the period ending 30 September 2007 by 31 March 2008, contrary to section 34 Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder.

The SDT accepted that the respondents had been deceived by a key member of staff in whom they had placed their trust. However, both respondents had been partners and, as such, both had been liable to ensure compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules. The SDT noted the importance of compliance with those rules, both to ensure the safety of clients’ monies and to maintain the reputation of the profession. While the SDT had sympathy with the respondents because of the consequences to them of the fraudulent activities of their practice manager and fully accepted that they had not been involved in or gained from such activities, as partners of the firm they had both had a duty to ensure, by the proper supervision of their staff, that their firm’s accounts were in order.

Given the serious nature of the allegations and the accounts responsibilities of all partners, the SDT had concluded that both respondents should be subject to a penalty of a fine of £10,000. The respondents were ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed, on the basis of joint and several liability.

Clarification
NE Law of 25 Military Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4JG, has no connection whatsoever with Nether Edge Law of PO Box 3439, Sheffield, S11 8NH.