Susan Elizabeth Hudson
- Application 10790-2011
- Hearing 16 February 2012
- Reasons 19 March 2012
The SDT ordered that as from 16 February 2012 except in accordance with Law Society permission: (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with his practice as a solicitor the respondent; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate, in connection with the solicitor’s practice the respondent; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.
The respondent had conducted conveyancing transactions that bore the hallmarks of mortgage fraud and she had failed to report material facts to lender clients. The SDT noted that the respondent had not attended before it at the substantive hearing to provide any explanation or mitigation for her conduct. The SDT had found the allegation proved.
In all the circumstances, the SDT decided that it was appropriate for an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to be made against the respondent. The SDT made clear that the section 43 order was not intended to be punitive in nature; it was a regulatory rather than a disciplinary order. A section 43 order did not preclude the respondent from working for a solicitor, but in order to do so she would first have to obtain permission in advance from the applicant.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,500, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.
