Michael Corrigan, Stephen Patrick McNeill, Barrie Thomas Kieran O`Connor, Desmond Draper and Jonathan David Bridge

• Application 10135-2008
• Hearing 6 October 2009
• Reasons 21 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1979), of Farleys Solicitors, 22-27 Richmond Terrace, Blackburn, Lancashire, BB1 7AF, should pay a fine of £3,000; that the second respondent (admitted 1981), of the same address, should be reprimanded; that the third respondent (admitted 1986), of the same address, should be reprimanded; that the fourth respondent (admitted 1994), of the same address, should pay a fine of £12,000; and that the fifth respondent (admitted 1992), of the same address, should be reprimanded.

The first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents had made payments to referrers of personal injury work before March 2004, contrary to rule 3 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; and they had failed to ensure that undertakings were recorded properly contrary to rule 1(a) and (d) of the rules. The fourth respondent only had failed to obtain an undertaking from an introducer, contrary to section 2 A(2) of the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990; and he had failed to provide the client with all relevant information regarding the referral, contrary to section 2A(3) of the code. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents had entered into an arrangement for the introduction of clients with an introducer who had received contingency fees in respect of such claims, contrary to rule 9 of the rules; they had acted in association with a person whose business was to make, support or prosecute personal injury claims and who in the course of such business solicited or received contingency fees, contrary to rule 9.01(4) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; and they had failed to act in the client’s best interest, contrary to rule 1.04 of the code as of 1 July 2007.

The SDT’s principal concern was that by entering into an arrangement with the introducer R, which deprived the client of a proportion of their damages, the respondents had failed to act in the best interests of the client, which had resulted in clients being unable to maximise the benefit of their claims. It was clear to the SDT that the fourth respondent had been primarily responsible for those breaches as he was the partner in charge of the personal injury department and had had responsibility for ensuring that the rules were complied with. Both the fourth respondent and the first respondent were in different positions from the other respondents in that they had been based at the Blackburn office and, accordingly, should have been aware of correspondence received and sent to the introducer R. Furthermore, it had been accepted that the fee-earner NM had continued working with the cases received from R in the same manner as he had done prior to being told not to do any further work.

While the respondents had submitted that had been a misunderstanding, it was the responsibility of the fourth respondent to supervise NM and to ensure that matters had been remedied. As a result of the respondents’ conduct, clients had suffered severely, the firm had not acted in their best interests and it had failed to advise them properly. The reputation of the profession had been brought into disrepute by that conduct. The SDT accepted that the positions of the second, third, and fifth respondents were much less culpable, particularly as they had not been based at the Blackburn office and had not undertaken any work from that particular introducer. However, all those respondents had still benefited from the income received from the work referred by R and accordingly had benefited to a degree from the breaches.

The second, third and fifth respondents were each ordered to pay costs of £2,000; the first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,000; and the fourth respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.