A solicitor who took advantage of a vulnerable widow by overcharging her more than £250,000 has been struck off the roll. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Jayesh Sasdev, admitted in 1987, spent at least six years working on the administration of an estate and knew his client trusted him, but all the time she was unaware he was transferring massive sums and depleting the funds.

He charged up to £75,000 to store documents at his firm’s premises, up to £10,000 for ‘estate agents commission’ and made a number of other excessive and unjustified charges.

Sasdev failed to provide adequate or accurate costs information and failed to wind up the estate promptly, later putting pressure on her not to complain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The tribunal said: ‘His conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated. He had targeted his client’s vulnerability, preying on her lack of English. He had caused her to fear the SRA so that she would not make any contact with them, or voice any complaint about his conduct; he had coerced his client into not communicating with the SRA. It was a pattern of behaviour that had continued throughout his retainer and had continued thereafter with the delivery of his final bill.’

Sasdev, sole equity owner of Ilford firm Archer Fields Solicitors, had been instructed following the death of the client’s husband, who was the sole principal of a legal practice. The former offices of this practice were sold for £280,000 and Sasdev charged commission in relation to this sale even though there was no agreement with the client.

The client did not speak English as her first language and was trying to care for a two-year-old child as well as administer her husband’s estate.

The deceased’s practice held around 7,600 files and documents at its former premises, and the tribunal heard that Sasdev told the client and her sister that he would have to rent a two-bedroom house for £1,200 a month to store all the boxes.

The client received nothing in writing confirming the storage costs. The SRA’s subsequent inquiries found that the annual cost should have been around £2,000.

Sasdev also charged for text messages and for communication with the SRA in relation to his conduct of this matter.

Sasdev, representing himself, did not accept that charges were excessive or unjustified and submitted that he acted honestly at all time: if he had charged for any matters that he should not have done, this was a genuine mistake. He argued that the senior courts costs office was the appropriate venue for a dispute over costs, not the tribunal.

The tribunal found his evidence was ‘not credible’ and that it was impossible to determine what work had been carried out. It was accepted that the client had not received any interim invoices, which were left ‘deliberately obscure’ so that Sasdev could not be questioned when he finally presented the bill.

It was found that Sasdev was motivated by personal financial gain and he had charged for matters as he knew they were unlikely to be challenged. He was struck off and ordered to pay £69,233 costs.

Topics