Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

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

Anthony David Willis and Catherine Bong

• Application 9566-2006; 9775-2007
• Hearing 26 February 2008
• Reasons 9 April 2008

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1997), of Grosvenor House, 98 London Road, Leicester LE2 0QS, should pay a fine of £15,000; directed that the directions made by the adjudicator of the Law Society, respectively dated 10 July 2007 (client Mrs G) and 7 August 2007 (client Mr M), should be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if they were orders of the High Court; and further ordered that, as from 26 April 2008, the first respondent should not be permitted to practise as a solicitor save in employment and in a capacity which had first been approved by the Law Society. The SDT approved and endorsed the indefinite suspension passed on the second respondent (admitted 1998), of Brambling Close, Rugby CV23 on
17 October 2006.

The first respondent had acted in breach of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in that, contrary to the provisions of rule 22(1), he had drawn from client account monies other than in accordance with the rules and had utilised the same for his own benefit; contrary to the provisions of rule 22(5), he had drawn from client account for the benefit of a client an amount which exceeded the money held on behalf of that client; contrary to the provisions of rule 32, he had failed to keep accounting records properly written up at all times to show his dealings with client money received and office money relating to client matters; contrary to the provisions of rule 7, he had failed to remedy breaches promptly on discovery. He had been guilty of unbefitting conduct, having transferred costs in the sum of £6,690.06 from a receivership account to office account without having first had such costs assessed by the Supreme Court Taxing Office, in accordance with an order of the Court of Protection dated 7 September 2004; he had provided misleading and/or inaccurate costs information, contrary to rule 1 and/or rule 15 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; he had failed to disclose material information to his lender client; he had completed a certificate of title which was misleading and/or inaccurate; in relation to B & W Solicitors, he had failed to deliver an accountant’s report for the period ending 31 March 2006, (due for delivery on or before 30 September 2006), contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder; in relation to B & W Solicitors, he had failed to deliver a cease to hold accountant’s report for the period 1 April 2006 to 15 September 2006 (due for delivery on or before 15 November 2006), contrary to section 34 of the 1974 act and the rules made thereunder; in relation to B & W Law LLP, he had failed to deliver an accountant’s report for the period 7 April 2006 to 6 October 2006 (due for delivery on or before 6 December 2006), contrary to section 34 of the 1974 act and the rules made thereunder; in relation to B & W Law LLP, he had failed to deliver a cease-to-hold accountant’s report for the period 7 October 2006 to 15 November 2006 (due for delivery on or before 15 January 2007), contrary to section 34 of the 1974 act; he had failed to comply with an expectation and/or direction of an adjudicator dated 29 June 2007, relating to the delivery of the accountant’s report referred to above; in relation to ADW Solicitors, he had failed to deliver an accountant’s report for the period ending 14 May 2007 (due for delivery on or before 14 July 2007), contrary to section 34 of the 1974 act and the rules made thereunder; he had failed to reply to correspondence from the Law Society; he had failed to comply with the directions of an adjudicator dated 10 July 2007, in relation to the matter of Mrs G; and he had failed to comply with the directions of an adjudicator dated 7 August 2007, in relation to the matter of Mr M.

The second respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct in that she had provided misleading and/or inaccurate costs information, contrary to rule 1 and/or rule 15 of the 1990 rules; and she had failed to ensure that a proposal form submitted in respect of professional indemnity insurance on behalf of the firm contained correct and accurate information. The SDT noted that the second respondent had already been subject to disciplinary proceedings, and further noted that at the time of the disciplinary hearing she was suspended from practice for an indefinite period of time. The SDT did not consider that the imposition of any more serious sanction against her was necessary. No dishonesty had been alleged against the first respondent, but the SDT was appalled at the chaotic nature of the accounts kept by him and at his failures to grasp the nettle and put things right without delay. It recognised that the loss of computerised data would be devastating, but a solicitor facing such difficulty had to realise that he had a high duty to make sure that his records were in order and that he would be required to reconstruct client accounting records from information contained on files. It was the first respondent’s own case that the number of files of which he had conduct was not huge. Because of the great concern that it had about the way that the first respondent had conducted himself, the SDT concluded that, in order to fulfil its duty to protect the public, it would impose a restriction on his ability to practise. The first respondent was ordered to pay £17,000 costs; the second respondent was ordered to pay £4,000 costs.

Satish Kuma Jakhu

• Application 9733-2007
• Admitted 1997
• Hearing 19 December 2007
• Reasons 28 March 2008

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Jubilee House, 4-10 Wheeleys Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 3AA, should pay a fine of £10,000. It further ordered that he be suspended from practice as a solicitor for one month, to commence on 21 January 2008. The respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct in that he had employed and/or remunerated in connection with his practice as a solicitor, without the prior written consent of the Law Society, a former solicitor whose name had been struck off the roll, in breach of section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974; on 28 November 2006 he had been convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and had been fined £250 and disqualified from driving for a period of 14 months; he had transferred the file of a client to other solicitors without the authority of the client; he had failed to carry out his professional work diligently and promptly; he had failed to act in his client’s best interests, contrary to rule 1(c) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; he had failed to act in accordance with his client’s instructions; he had failed and/or delayed in replying to correspondence from his client; he had failed to keep his client adequately informed of progress in relation to her claim; he had failed to disclose material information to his client by failing to advise that the Legal Services Commission had declined to amend a public funding certificate, contrary to rules 1(c), (d) and (e) of the 1990 rules; and he had failed to advise his client to seek independent legal advice once he was aware that his actions had prejudiced or potentially prejudiced his client, following the transfer of the retainer to his new firm which did not have a legal aid contract, contrary to rules 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the 1990 rules. The SDT found that allegations three to 10 were serious matters. The client was an injured child and a vulnerable person. If her mother had not been legally knowledgeable, the consequences would have been very serious, including probably missing the limitation period for commencement of proceedings. The respondent had stated that the client would not have to pay any legal costs out of her damages award, and the SDT was proceeding on the basis that it had had from the respondent an undertaking that she would receive the full amount of her damages award plus interest, with the only deduction being disbursements not recoverable from the defendant. Taking into account all the submissions on behalf of the respondent, his written representations, and having considered the references in his support the SDT considered that, in relation to those allegations, together with the allegation relating to the conviction for failure to provide a specimen of breath, an appropriate and proportionate sanction was a fine. In relation to the breach of section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the SDT was required to impose a mandatory sanction of suspension or strike-off. Breach of section 41 had serious consequences, because solicitors should deliberately distance themselves from former solicitors who had been struck off the roll, except with the express permission of the Law Society. The respondent failed to do that. Having carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the breach, and again bearing in mind the documentation and the references in support of the respondent, together with submissions on his behalf, the SDT concluded that a period of suspension rather than a striking-off was appropriate. In judging the length of the suspension, it took into account the fact that the respondent was a sole practitioner with a significant number of employees. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,000 costs.