Mark James Clarke

Mark James Clarke

• Application 10287-2009
• Admitted 1990
• Hearing 9 March 2010
• Reasons 13 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Bournemouth BH8, should pay a fine of £5,000.

The respondent had failed to obtain professional indemnity insurance, pursuant to rule 4 of the Solicitors Indemnity Rules 2008; he had failed to apply to the assigned risks pool, pursuant to rule 10 of the 2008 rules; he had practised without a practising certificate, in breach of rule 20.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had failed to remedy client account shortfalls upon discovery, contrary to rule 7 of the Solicitors Account Rules 1998; he had wrongly retained client monies in his office bank account, contrary to rule 20(2) of the 1998 rules; he had failed to pay professional disbursements, in accordance with rule 19(1) of the 1998 rules; he had failed to deliver his accountant’s report, contrary to rule 35 of the 1998 rules; and he had failed to provide adequate supervision of client matters, pursuant to rule 13 of the 1998 rules. Furthermore, or in the alternative, the respondent had failed to supervise and manage his practice, pursuant to rule 5 of the 2007 code.

The SDT had found the respondent to be a credible and transparent witness. That was also borne out by the strong references provided and the fact that one of the respondent’s clients had offered him employment. The SDT had sympathy for the position in which the respondent had found himself, and it was clear that he had been a victim of the actions of one of his employees. Nevertheless, there had been serious breaches which the respondent had admitted and, indeed, failure to obtain professional indemnity insurance or apply to the assigned risks pool, and practising without a practising certificate were serious regulatory matters that put the public at risk. They also prevented the Solicitors Regulation Authority from carrying out its regulatory functions, and while the SDT accepted that the respondent had taken steps to try and rectify the position, the accepted breaches had caused damage to the reputation of the profession and had placed the public at risk.

The SDT noted the respondent’s medical difficulties and was also mindful that three of the allegations all related to the same matter and arose from the same facts. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £9,000.