The Solicitors Regulation Authority has been ordered to pay £50,000 in costs after a tribunal ruled that it had ‘poorly investigated’ a matter leading to prosecution.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said the case against David Buckle, a partner with Kent firm DMB Law, was reduced to hearsay after a key witness died. This should have prompted the SRA to review the matter, the tribunal said. However the SRA pursued a prosecution through to a four-day hearing last month which resulted in Buckle being cleared of any wrongdoing.
It is the second time this month that the SRA has been on the wrong end of a costs order. It was previously told to pay £160,000 following a ‘fundamentally misconceived’ prosecution of a sole practitioner.
The tribunal in Buckle heard that the solicitor, 76, had been asked to advise on property development proposals by a client referred to as Mrs A. When the first developer withdrew from the project in 2014, Buckle set out a proposal of his own where he would finance the costs up to £1m and be entitled to 50% of any profit, capped at £500,000.
The project would be administered through Buckle’s own contracting and financing companies but there was no retainer letter and no written agreements or protections between the parties. There was no dispute that Buckle had advised Mrs A to take independent legal advice ahead of going forward with the development.
The development works were delayed and costs escalated, and in 2021, DMB Law on behalf of the financing company wrote to Mrs A seeking more than £2m for build, finance and administrative costs and professional fees. Mrs A disputed the claim and reported the matter to the SRA.
The regulator submitted that Buckle, admitted in 1993, had allowed his independence to be compromised and that Mrs A had been vulnerable due to her age and inexperience in financial and property matters.
For Bucle, Geoffrey Williams KC said the opposite was true: Mrs A took advantage of the solicitor. Several witnesses described her as ‘formidable’ and as a person who would not take no for an answer.
The tribunal found Buckle’s evidence to be honest and corroborated by other witnesses. It accepted he was acting in his personal capacity as a financier and not a solicitor when the development proposal was made.
Mrs A was not considered to be a vulnerable witness and Buckle did not take advantage of her, and there was no significant risk of conflict. The tribunal did find that the solicitor failed to ensure appropriate contractual arrangements were in place but this did not amount to professional misconduct.
The tribunal added that the SRA’s forensic investigation officer, Ms B Southam who gave oral evidence during the hearing, had been an ‘evasive witness’ who ‘was robotic, combative at times and omitted to verify all the relevant facts during her investigation’.
It was further found that the SRA placed undue reliance on the evidence of Mrs A, who died in 2025.
