Michael Thomas Cornish and Peter Steven BosherApplication 8006/1999Hearing, 30 March 2000:reasons, 1 June 2000

The SDT imposed a penalty of 3,000 on Mr Cornish (admitted 1975) of Lex Ho, 1/7 Hainault St, Ilford, London IG1 4EL, and a penalty of 1,000 on Mr Bosher (admitted 1977) of the same address, who practised in partnership together, for unbefitting conduct in acting in breach of Council statement document C, in that they failed and/or delayed in reviewing a client's priority opt-out pension transaction by the target date (30 June 1997) (or at all) and had failed to complete the review of the non-priority transfer transaction arranged for the client within two years, they had failed and/or delayed in completing the review of other priority pension matters conducted by the firm by the prescribed deadline (31 December 1997) (or at all) and had otherwise failed to devote adequate resources to achieving that end, and they had failed to retain pension files in breach of the Council's guidance on the preservation of pension records; the respondents' complaints handling procedure (or their application of it) did not ensure that a client's complaint was investigated promptly and thoroughly and in compliance with the relevant rule, contrary to r.15 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; they failed and/or delayed in complying with a direction of the Compliance & Supervision Committee to complete the review process within two months; and they had acted in breach of r.1 of the 1990 rules in that their clients had experienced substantial delays in the review of their pension policies (the unnecessary delays caused by the respondents leading to a failure to comply with the Law Society's requirements to complete the pension review by 31 December 1997; in general, they had failed to devote adequate resources to achieving that end; and in the circumstances they had compromised or impaired their integrity as solicitors and had failed to preserve the good repute of themselves and of the profession), and they had thereby failed to observe a proper standard of work.

The penalties imposed on the respondents reflected their different areas of responsibility.

The costs were similarly apportioned; Mr Cornish was ordered to pay 2,760 costs, and Mr Bosher 920.