A fee earner barred from the profession for transferring £100,000 between his own clients has failed in a bid to have the restriction removed.
Anthony Smith claimed the Solicitors Regulation Authority had been ‘hoodwinked’ into believing lies told by the man whose money was paid to his wife with Smith’s assistance.
Smith accepted that he became ‘personally involved’ in a dispute between the couple involving allegations of neglect and bullying on the part of the husband. Smith was made subject to a section 43 order in 2017 preventing him from working for any regulated firm without securing SRA permission.
More than five years later he applied to review and remove the order before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The tribunal heard that Smith, then employed at Dorset firm Grenville J Walker Solicitors, acted for the couple and was appointed as sole attorney. Using this power he made four payments to the wife worth £80,000 from the husband’s bank account, and transferred £20,000 proceeds from the sale of their joint property.
An SRA adjudication panel found that Smith favoured the wife’s interests and failed to act in the husband’s best interests.
Challenging the section 43 order, Smith said the husband had complained to the SRA ‘with a story concocted to paint himself in a good light and [Smith] in a bad light’. The husband had waited four years to raise any issue and the SRA had been ‘foolish’ and ‘naïve’ to believe his lies, Smith submitted. Smith said he had worked for 40 years without any complaints against him and was a hardworking, conscientious and honest practitioner.
The tribunal heard that despite the section 43 order, Smith continued to seek and accept employment with solicitor firms whilst failing to inform them of the restrictions imposed by the SRA. This involved eight different firms over three years.
Criminal proceedings were listed against Smith in 2021 and he was convicted in his absence of seven offences under section 44 of the Solicitors Act. He was fined £3,500 in total.
The SRA said the section 43 order continued to be necessary for the protection of the public and to protect the reputation of the profession.
The tribunal said it understood Smith’s motives to help the wife but this was not relevant to the central issue of conduct. The adjudication panel’s findings were not unreasonable, it was found. The application for review was dismissed and Smith ordered to pay £2,943 in costs.
