Stewart Quartz – clerk

• Application 10394-2009
• Hearing 16 March 2010
• Reasons 7 May 2010

The SDT ordered that, as from 16 March 2010, (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate in connection with the business of that body the respondent, of Hailsham, East Sussex BN27, except in accordance with Law Society permission; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall, except in accordance with Law Society permission, permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should, except in accordance with Law Society permission, permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.

The respondent had been guilty of conduct of such a nature that in the opinion of the Law Society it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor in that he had made or caused to be made, payments from client account of his employers which were unauthorised, in that they had purported to relate to transactions of which the respondent had had conduct, when in fact the payments had not been for matters relating to those transactions, and had not been authorised by clients; in that some or all of the payments referred to above had been made for the benefit of the respondent and/or to discharge debts owed by the respondent; and in that the respondent’s conduct as set out above was dishonest.

The SDT found that in taking money from client account belonging to clients of his employer firm and in taking money from his employer by issuing false credit notes, the respondent’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. The respondent had concealed his activities by making it appear that the payments for his own benefit were related to client transactions, and had manipulated the client ledgers in order to conceal his activity. The SDT was satisfied so that it was sure that the respondent did not have an honest belief that he was entitled to such money and that he had concealed his nefarious activities, and therefore that he knew that what he was doing was dishonest by those same standards.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.