A former solicitor has had his appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s strike-off decision dismissed. Harry Francis Cottam, admitted in August 1991, was struck off in 2023 and ordered to pay £4,000 costs after he was found to have caused or allowed improper transfer of monies from the client account to the office account.
A finding of dishonesty was made out in relation to the first allegation. A second allegation of the creation of false invoices was found not proved.
Cottam represented himself at the appeal hearing and was praised by Mr Justice Macdonald 'for the manner with which he conducted himself during a hearing that was undoubtedly difficult for him, his submissions having been clear and closely argued'.
However in HFC v Solicitors Regulation Authority the judge found that the SDT had ‘delivered a comprehensive and closely reasoned decision’. It was ‘not possible in this case to identify “a critical finding of fact which has no basis in the evidence, or a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence, or a demonstrable failure to consider relevant evidence”’.
The judge acknowledged Cottam’s statement to the SRA investigator in which he accepted he made the transfers, finding ‘the acceptance by Mr Cottam that he made the transfers in question came not in response to a question or at the end of a long interview, but in an introductory statement given by Mr Cottam at the outset of the interview’.
Read more
He added: ‘At no point in the interview did Mr Cottam seek to qualify or clarify that statement. In particular, at no point did he attempt to ascribe the admission to the firm or a member of staff at the firm rather than to himself personally, nor did he do so when telling the FIO that he was the only person who could authorise the transfers.’
The judge added that Cottam did not appeal against the sanction imposed but ‘accepted that a finding of dishonesty would result in his removal from the roll’ and as his appeal had failed, the SDT’s finding of dishonesty stands.
Dismissing the appeal, the judge said: ‘I am satisfied that there is no basis for concluding in this case that the decision of the tribunal was wrong, or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.’
