Tribunal’s ‘serious doubts’ about prosecution of 79-year-old solicitor

Topics: Regulation and compliance

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (26)
  • Save

Related images

  • SDT-sign

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has questioned why a retired sole practitioner was hauled before a hearing after almost 50 years of previously exemplary service.

Reginald Hemmings, 79, was alleged to have notified the Solicitors Regulation Authority three weeks late that his firm had entered the extended indemnity period after failing to secure insurance by 1 October 2013.


Hemmings, who practised in Taunton, Somerset, also appeared to take on two new instructions after 31 October, not permitted by SRA rules. He also held £636 received from a client in the office bank account until the problem was picked up and rectified five months later.

The SRA also alleged that Hemmings had written to his indemnity insurers in February 2014 saying he had accepted no new instructions.

However he told the tribunal that he had written to a client over a ‘minor matter’ where property had been transferred between spouses, and it had not occurred to him this was a new instruction.

The SDT said this allegation amounted to a ‘genuine error’ in relation to one extremely minor new instruction, and the solicitor had tried to give the best service to his clients.

It was alleged that Hemmings had breached the accounts rules by failing to make transfers from office to client accounts of £25, £100 and £636. Hemmings admitted these breaches.

The SDT heard that Hemmings was in the process of closing his practice and had informed the SRA it was entering the closing down period.

He described the experience of appearing before the tribunal as ‘extremely distressing’ and submitted that he had always acted with integrity, honesty and diligence.

The SRA intervened into the firm in April 2014 after receiving information he was continuing to act for clients after the end of the closure period, although Hemmings maintained he was days away from completing an orderly wind-down when the intervention happened.

The tribunal said that, bearing in mind the powers available to the SRA, there were ‘serious doubts’ about the referral to the SDT.

‘Although it was important that rules were to be observed, equally there was also a need to act proportionally when considering enforcement action,’ said the tribunal.

‘In his evidence, [Hemmings] came across as a man of integrity who had his clients’ best interests at heart. Further, he had provided almost 50 years of exemplary service to the profession.’ Overall the SDT chose to reprimand Hemmings and nothing more.

The SDT found an allegation that Hemmings provided banking facilities to a client through his firm’s client account proved.

The solicitor explained this related to a complicated family matter and that he did not consider it to be a banking facility.

This was found to be the most serious allegation found proved, but the tribunal accepted Hemmings made a ‘genuine mistake’. 

The SRA said Hemmings made more than 200 payments from his client account where there was no underlying legal transaction, with monies amounting to nearly £80,000.

The regulator applied for £6,472 in costs, but the tribunal reduced this to £2,000 due to Hemmings having limited means and no assets or savings.

Gordon Ramsay, the SRA's director of legal and enforcement, said: ‘In our view, this was an issue that the tribunal should consider, including the mitigation Mr Hemmings put forward in his evidence. It was prosecuted proportionately by our in-house team.’

Readers' comments (26)

  • Mr Philip - CEO of the SRA - Is this is what you call proportionate regulation...?

    Hounding some old fella nearly to his grave is quite appalling and whoever decided on the prosecution should be ashamed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Must have been a slow business month where the SRA decided they have to fill their quota of referrals to SDT to justify their position in the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Gordon Ramsay, the SRA's defender of legal and enforcement, said: ‘It was prosecuted proportionately by our in-house team.’"

    The tribunal said it wasn't - who the hell is Gordon Ramsey to gainsay their opinion

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is not quite "who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?", but pretty close.
    if Mr Hemmings had not been a solicitor, then no one would have said anything.
    On the other hand if he changed his name to Mr Parabis he could have done whatever he liked, and still noon would have said anything.
    As nice an example of the disproportionate implementation, impact and enforcement of regulations as one could hope to find.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jesus, kick a man for retaining his heart why don't you...shame on the not fit for purpose SRA....shame on YOU!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sledge hammer to crack a peanut comes to mind.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gordon Ramsay should stick to cooking and swearing!


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reminds me just of the way in which bullies at school behaved. They'd never pick on the 'big boys', who probably would have given better than they got, and instead would pick on those who were smaller than themselves and less likely to fight back.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The SRA should hang its head in shame. A man gives over 50 years of unblemished service to this lousy profession, cannot get or at least afford insurance, which would only have been compulsory post1975 BTW, ties up a few loose ends, had he not done so he could properly have been criticised BTW, and gets hauled before the SDT. And that body of spineless nonentities does not possess the backbone to chuck the case out!

    What has this profession come to???

    The next thing is they will be making the man bankrupt over the costs order!!!

    You couldn't make it up!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PS And no one seems to have lost anything as a result or all this, unless you count the SRA and SDT losing their sense of proportion and compassion, assuming they ever had any to lose in the first place.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10per page20per page50per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (26)
  • Save


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition