Russell Peter Eaton

• Application 10285-2009
• Admitted 1981
• Hearing 11 March 2010
• Reasons 14 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Northampton NN3, should pay a fine of £7,000. The respondent had failed to act with integrity towards his clients, Mr K and Miss T, contrary to rule 1.02 Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had failed to act in the best interests of his clients, Mr K and Miss T, contrary to rule 1.04 of the code; he had failed to offer a proper standard of service to his clients, Mr K and Miss T, contrary to rule 1.05 of the code; in connection with his clients, Mr K and Miss T, he had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust which the public placed in him or the profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; he had failed to keep his client, Miss T, properly informed of progress in her case, contrary to rule 2.02 of the code; in connection with his client, Mr K, he had failed to give clear costs information in writing, contrary to rule 2.03 of the code; and he had acted on his own account on behalf of clients without having in force the requisite indemnity insurance cover, contrary to the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules.

The SDT noted that the respondent’s testimonials said that what had happened Miss T and Mr K was out of character. It was apparent that the chaos in the respondent’s previous firm had allowed him an opportunity to do something which would not normally have occurred to him. The SDT had looked very carefully at all of the facts and mitigation in the matter and at the testimonials provided by the respondent, as well as the SDT’s findings made on 17 November 2009 against the respondent’s previous employer (see Application 10250-2009). The SDT considered the respondent’s conduct to be of an extremely serious nature. He had taken advantage of vulnerable clients. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the effect on the regard in which the profession was held by the public, the SDT had seriously considered suspending the respondent. However, it could be seen from the testimonials supplied by the respondent that he was held in high regard in his local area by the profession, the police and magistrates. The SDT had also noted from the references that the respondent was regarded as a competent and respected advocate, which made it even more extraordinary that he had behaved as he had. The SDT had also been impressed that his current employer held him in such regard that he was present at the hearing to provide support to him. Therefore, taking into account the respondent’s admissions from an early stage and his co-operation with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the penalty in the present case would be a fine.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,161.