![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
A solicitor who pretended to still be working for his old firm to dupe potential investors has been struck off the roll.
Daniel Whittingham was found to have held himself out as a solicitor with national firm Blake Morgan several months after his dismissal.
Trying to secure money to invest in a bar, he showed out-of-date business cards and pointed to his LinkedIn profile which appeared to show he was still with his old firm.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Whittingham had ‘abused his status as a solicitor’ to gain the trust of two potential investors and take advantage of them.
The tribunal’s judgment added: ‘Mr Whittingham was asserting that he was a solicitor at the firm when he knew full well that he was not. This was no mere "advertising puff", it was a representation of fact designed to deceive.’
The tribunal heard that Whittingham, who was admitted in 2015, lost his job with Blake Morgan in 2018 during his probation period. Three months later, he advertised on an investors network website seeking funding for an investment opportunity.
When one potential investor asked for proof of employment, Whittingham sent pictures of his old business card and signposted him to the LinkedIn profile.
The man lent him £3,000, and put him in touch with another investor who agreed to lend a further £5,000. Whittingham assured them that the returns would be partly funded from his salary as a lawyer, and the tribunal found that he used this status as a solicitor ‘to lend a veneer of respectability and creditworthiness to the investment opportunity’.
Repayments were missed and both investors say they are still owed money.
Whittingham did not attend the tribunal and was not represented. He had previously told the SRA that he had simply not updated his LinkedIn profile and he merely wanted ‘to give a picture that I have worked in business’. He said he had no dishonest intentions but he was full of regret for what had happened and pledged to repay the money when his financial situation improved.
The tribunal struck him off and ordered him to pay £5,000 costs.
