Stephen Paul Share

• Application 10247-2009
• Admitted 1975
• Hearing 24 November 2009
• Reasons 27 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Snodsbury, Worcestershire WR7, should be struck off the roll.

Contrary to rule 20.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, he had failed to supply the information, documentation and explanation requested in a letter from the Solicitors Regulation Authority dated 21 February 2008; contrary to rule 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and/or rules 1.02, 1.04, 1.06 and 12.01 of the code, he had sought to put himself beyond regulation and/or practice as a solicitor through a limited company, Solicitors Probate Services Ltd, (SPSL) that was not a recognised body; contrary to rule 1(a) and (c) of the rules and/or rule 1.02 and 1.04 of the code, by practising through or, in the alternative acting for, SPSL, he had taken unfair advantage of clients, or prospective clients, by seeking to persuade them, or causing them to appoint him and/or SPSL as an executor in their will(s); contrary to rule 1(a), (c) and/or (d) of the rules and/or rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the code, by practising through or, in the alternative acting for, SPSL he had facilitated, permitted or acquiesced in taking unfair advantage of clients, or prospective clients, by seeking to persuade, or causing them to enter into agreements not in their best interests, (the Estate Insurance Scheme); contrary to rule 1(a), (c) and (d) of the rules and rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the code, by practising through, or in the alternative acting for, SPSL, he had facilitated, permitted, or acquiesced in clients being misled into believing that SPSL was a firm of solicitors, when it was not, by use of the word ‘Solicitors’ in the company name; contrary to rules 1(a), (c) and (d) of the rules and/or rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the code and/or the Solicitors Publicity Code 1990 by practising through, or in the alternative acting for, SPSL, he had facilitated, permitted or acquiesced in the use of misleading publicity; contrary to rule 1(a) and/or (d) of the 1990 rules he had written or, in the alternative, had caused to be written, a letter dated 7 August 2006 in relation to the estate of W, which had been misleading and/or inaccurate and in so doing, had misled the recipients of the letter; he had failed to arrange indemnity insurance for his practice as a sole principal in which capacity he had acted for the estate of W (deceased) and/or had held client money, contrary to the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2006; contrary to the Solicitors Separate Business Code 1994, he had operated a separate business by practising through SPSL at a time when he had been a partner in a firm of solicitors; contrary to section 84 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), he had failed to notify the SRA of a change in his place of business; and contrary to rule 32 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, he had failed to carry out the required reconciliations. The SDT was satisfied that the allegations against the respondent were extremely serious and that he had been grossly reckless in his actions.

The SDT was extremely concerned that a solicitor had been involved in what was simply a money-making exercise in which his clients’ interests had not been paramount. No proper regard had been given to the particular needs of individual clients and the SPSL agents, dependent as they had been on commission, had not been motivated to consider the interests of individual clients. The use of scripts had been inconsistent with the practice of a solicitor. The respondent had been acting in breach of the indemnity rules.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,000, such order not to be enforced without the leave of the SDT.