Suramya Krishnakumaran
Thursday 08 July 2010
- Application 10339-2009
- Admitted 2001
- Hearing 4 March 2010
- Reasons 3 June 2010
The SDT ordered that the respondent, of SK Justicia Solicitors, 6 Union Street, London SE1 1SZ, should pay a fine of £7,500.
The respondent had allowed her client account to be used to provide banking facilities to prospective investors/shareholders of a client, Broadgate Metals PLC (Broadgate), in breach of rule 1.01 and/or rule 1.02 and/or rule 1.06 of the of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 and/or rule 15 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules; she had failed to provide for compliance with the money laundering regulations in respect of monies received from investors/shareholders of a client, Broadgate, in breach of rule 5.01(1)(b) of the code; she had failed to exercise appropriate supervision over all staff and to ensure proper supervision and direction of clients’ matters by allowing counsel’s fees to be incurred by members of her staff without her knowledge and/or for such fees to remain unpaid, without the necessary agreement having been obtained from counsel’s clerks, in breach of rule 5.01(1)(a) of the code; and she had failed to register her firm for VAT with HM Revenue and Customs, in breach of rule 1.01 and/or rule 5.01(1) of the code.
The SDT was extremely concerned that the respondent’s failures in supervision had resulted in three of her self-employed fee-earners allegedly issuing false receipts for clients’ monies in a practice dealing mainly with immigration work, whose clients would, in many cases, be vulnerable. Moreover, large debts to counsel had been incurred and remained outstanding. The respondent appeared to have had little idea of what her staff had been doing. The SDT was concerned that the respondent had shown a careless attitude to practice management, a total disregard for money-laundering regulations and a complete misunderstanding of the guidance relating to the provision of banking facilities. However, the SDT noted that there had been no allegation of dishonesty or of loss to clients, and determined that an appropriate penalty, in all the circumstances, would be a fine.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,000.
