A solicitor who acted for two legal aid clients has been reprimanded over a breach of accounts rules.
Nigel John Weller, admitted in 1977, breached accounts rules when he failed to promptly pay into a client account £6,000 given to him during a criminal trial by a member of his client’s family. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment also found Weller, while in practice as a solicitor at Lewes-based firm Nigel Weller & Co, failed to carry out appropriate due diligence and source of funds checks. The three-person panel found two other allegations against Weller not proved.
During a trial at Southampton Crown Court in 2022, Weller represented two legally aided clients in criminal proceedings. The SDT judgment said he accepted £6,000 in cash which was handed to him in a car park by Client A’s brother-in-law ‘against the backdrop of a Crown court restraint order restricting access to the clients’ assets’.
Weller said the payments were for unrecoverable expenses permitted under the Legal Aid contract and provided by a third party. He denied any regulatory breach.
Finding the first allegation against Weller not proved, the SDT said it ‘was not satisfied to the requisite standard that the [payment] request amounted to a breach of the regulations’.
Referring to the second allegation, which was also found not proved, the judgment added: ‘In light of the ambiguity in the relevant regulatory provisions, the absence of direct evidence from either Client A or Client B, and the limited weight the tribunal was able to attach to [a witness’ evidence who had reported concerns following a conversation with Client A], it was not satisfied that the acceptance of the payments amounted to a breach of the regulations.’
Read more
The tribunal accepted the funds were held securely by Weller but he was in breach of accounts rules as the funds were received from a third party and no written agreement was in place.
It said: ‘The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had failed to promptly pay the £6,000 into a client account, contrary to rule 2.3 of the accounts rules.’
Finding Weller had failed to carry out appropriate due diligence and source of funds checks, the judgment said: ‘The conversation with the third party was limited, no ID checks were undertaken, and the respondent did not take sufficient steps to verify the origin of the funds, particularly given the size of the payment and the existence of a restraint order.’
Weller’s culpability was found to be limited to the breach of accounts rules ‘of which no harm had been caused’. Weller was a ‘diligent and conscientious practitioner who has specialised in animal welfare cases, including leading cases since 2006’, had an unblemished record and ‘conducted the underlying case involving Clients A and B with thoroughness and intensive preparation’.
The SDT reprimanded Weller and ordered him to pay £8,000 costs.
