Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal) include:

Brian James Snaith

• Application 9704-2007
• Admitted 1996
• Hearing 4 March 2008
• Reasons 18 April 2008

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ordered that the respondent, of Bondgate, Selby, North Yorkshire Y08, should pay a fine of £1,000. The respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct in that he had failed to deliver to the Law Society by 28 May 2003 his accountant’s report for his financial year ending 28 November 2002 account, in breach of section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and rule 35 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; had failed to deliver to the Law Society by 28 May 2004 his accountant’s report for his financial year ending 28 November 2003 account, in breach of section 34 of the 1974 act and rule 35 of the 1998 rules; had failed to deliver to the Law Society by 28 May 2005 his accountant’s report for his financial year ending 28 November 2004 account, in breach of section 34 of the 1974 act and rule 35 of the 1998 rules; had failed to deliver to the Law Society by 28 May 2006 his accountant’s report for his financial year ending 28 November 2005 account, in breach of section 34 of the 1974 act and rule 35 of the 1998 rules; had failed to deal promptly and substantively with correspondence from the Law Society; and had failed to deliver to the Law Society by 28 May 2007 his accountant’s report for his financial year ending 28 November 2006 account in breach of section 34 of the 1974 act and rule 35 of the 1998 rules.

The SDT had considerable sympathy with the circumstances in which the respondent had found himself. It appreciated the considerable and consecutive difficulties faced by him, starting with problems with his former partner and then compounded by other matters, which were largely out of his control and which had led to him suffering mental health problems. There was no criticism of the Law Society for bringing the case before the SDT. It was important for solicitors to be aware that there were organisations which they could approach for help when facing the kind of difficulties experienced by the respondent, such as LawCare. Approaching people for help was often a problem for people in the respondent’s circumstances, but there were people who could assist. The SDT was conscious of the problems faced by the respondent in relation to the present matter and was anxious to ensure that he could put those behind him. While the final decision would be made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the SDT supported the adoption of a sensible course which would bring the matter to a final conclusion in respect of all the outstanding reports.

The SDT noted particularly that there was no suggestion of dishonesty against the respondent and that, notwithstanding that the rump of clients’ money had been in place for some time and that the respondent had been under considerable financial pressure, there was no suggestion that he had misappropriated any funds. The SDT noted that the respondent had not in fact complied with the strictures of the SDT when he had appeared before it in 2005 and its suggestion of a solution to the matter. The SDT in 2008 understood that it was not easy to dispose of the client funds the respondent had been holding and that the correct procedures had to be followed before those funds could be transferred to a charity. It was necessary, however, for the SDT to mark to a degree its disapproval of the fact that the respondent had not done that. The SDT was conscious of the fact that the respondent had been before it on two previous occasions and of the importance of upholding the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public. It recognised, however, the link between the three appearances and in particular between the 2005 appearance and the present proceedings, and it also recognised the particularly difficult circumstances surrounding the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,500 costs.

Alexander Francis Speed and John Kenneth Fairclough

• Application 9764-2007
• Hearing 28 February 2008
• Reasons 25 April 2008

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1998), of Barlow Moor Road, Manchester M21, should pay a fine of £5,000; and that the second respondent (admitted 1999), of 47-49 High Street, Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside WA12 9SP, should pay a fine of £5,000 for unbefitting conduct. The respondents had entered into an arrangement with a union official that was improper and unprofessional; and had provided benefits and/or made payments to a union official (in cash or otherwise) that they knew or ought to have known were improper and unprofessional. The SDT was not satisfied that, by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, the respondents would have been considered dishonest. In reaching its decision the SDT had taken careful account of the excellent character references handed in by both respondents and had noted what had been said by individual referees about their character and honesty. Suspicion, and there was a great deal of it in the case, was not enough. Dishonesty could not be proved by inference and speculation. While cash payments which were not put through the office accounts were a matter of concern, there were possible explanations for that and no evidence of the reason for the payments being made in that way had been put forward. The fact that it appeared that the recipient had not declared the payments to his employing union was between him and his employer. The respondents were each ordered to pay 50% of the costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

Amar-Ul Haq and Kamran Malik

• Application 9811-2007
• Hearing 6 March 2008
• Reasons 29 April 2008

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1998), of 6-8 Mayou Court, 32 High Street, Pelsall, Walsall WS3 4LX, should pay a fine of £5,000; and that the second respondent (admitted 2003), of Alum Rock Road, Birmingham B8, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months to commence on 6 March 2008. Both respondents had failed to maintain properly written up books of accounts, contrary to rule 32 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; had withdrawn monies from client bank account, contrary to rule 22; had failed to withdraw costs from client bank account as required by rule 19(1)(c); had breached the terms of rule 1(c) and (d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (as amended) by virtue of their failure to provide full and accurate information to conveyancing clients in relation to the true cost to their firm of fees for telegraphic transfers. Further, the second respondent alone had been in breach of rule 1(a), (d) and (e) of the 1990 rules by virtue of his acting in commercial transactions that were suspicious, bearing the hallmarks of money laundering and potential fraud; had breached the terms of ­professional undertakings; had unreasonably delayed in the performance of professional undertakings; and had failed adequately to deal with correspondence from Messrs Blocks Solicitors with respect to outstanding professional undertakings.

The SDT found that the allegations substantiated against the first respondent, which related to breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules and clients’ money not being properly handled, were extremely serious. The SDT took into account the difficulties suffered by the firm, but was less impressed by the fact that the accounting deficiencies had not been fully put right at the date of the disciplinary hearing. With regard to the second respondent, the SDT repeated the seriousness with which it viewed the breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules. The seriousness of the second respondent’s failures was exemplified by the fact that there was over a £1m debit balance on a suspense account. The SDT took a particularly serious view of his involvement in four commercial transactions which bore the hallmarks of money laundering or potential fraud. It accepted that he was young and inexperienced at the material time and had not been dishonest but had been compelled to accept instructions and act in unusual circumstances owing to an extraordinary degree of naivety. The SDT had taken into account the excellent references offered in support of the second respondent, which indicated that he was honest and capable. It had also taken into account the fact that he undertook a great deal of valuable work in the religious and wider community. However, his acting in the present transactions was extraordinarily misguided and his conduct was compounded by his failure to comply fully and timeously with undertakings given in the course of a conveyancing transaction, in itself a very serious failing on the part of a solicitor. The SDT was concerned to learn that the second respondent had sought to explain his failures by stating that the undertaking had been given by a trainee. The first respondent was ordered to pay one third of the costs, to be assessed if not agreed; the second respondent was ordered to pay two thirds.