A sole practitioner who carried on practising for a year after his insurance cover ended has been found to have acted dishonestly and struck off.
Andrew Lee, admitted in November 2011, had been the sole director, manager and role-holder of north west London firm Prometheus Law, and was supposed to have closed the business in June 2022 after it was unable to renew professional indemnity insurance.
But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Lee continued to act for clients on private legal work until the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened into the firm in July 2023. He was found to have given misleading information to the SRA about the nature of his relationship with one client and to have been dishonest by continuing to practise.
‘[Lee] knew the relevant facts, namely that the firm was uninsured and required to cease practice,’ said the tribunal’s ruling. ‘His unwillingness to confront the implications of those facts did not prevent him from knowing them.’
Lee had accepted his conduct was wrong and that some legal work, instructions and payments occurred after the insurance cover had ended. He submitted that he had been ‘obsessed’ with trying to preserve or revive the firm’s previous insurance arrangements and, until the SRA's intervention, believed there was some chance of obtaining a solution.
He accepted he had sent a client standard terms of business which stated that the firm had PII when no such cover existed, but he explained this was due to using an outdated template. He denied the suggestion there had been a ‘universal strategy of concealment’ and said that in one case his relationship with the client was a friendship with ‘increasingly professional characteristics’.
The tribunal accepted that Lee had been trying to save a firm he had built over many years but that did not alter the regulatory position or answer the allegation of dishonesty.
It added: ‘[Lee] knew three things: the firm had no qualifying insurance, the cessation period had expired, and the firm was required to cease practice. He nevertheless continued to accept instructions and to do legal work. Putting his head in the sand did not negate that knowledge. He described some of the people he acted for as friends and relied on blurred personal and professional boundaries. That did not change the character of the communications, which were in substance, and often in form, correspondence between solicitor and client.’
Lee was struck off and ordered to pay £45,121 costs.
