A solicitor who knowingly made misleading disclosures over his personal finances in relation to his divorce settlement has been struck off.
Matthew Stephen Becker, admitted in January 2000, was a partner at Curtis Law LLP at the time of the allegations before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. He denied both charges.
The SDT found Becker had disclosed his personal finances in relation to financial settlement on divorce when he knew, or ought to have known, that the disclosure provided was inaccurate and/or incomplete and therefore misleading.
In a written judgment the SDT said it was ‘clear on the face of both [forms filled in by Becker] that Mr Becker had failed to declare his capital account at the firm’. It added: ‘Mr Becker also stated that he considered the Form E to be informal and voluntary. The tribunal found that whilst that might have been the case, that did not entitle him, as a solicitor, to complete it inaccurately.’
The tribunal said Becker’s failure to declare the money retained for him at the firm was a ‘conscious and deliberate act in circumstances where he considered that the offer made to Person B was reasonable and fair, and where he did not consider his interest in the firm to be a matrimonial asset, Person B, in his view, having made no contribution to that or to his position as a partner’.
Read more
The tribunal found Becker had ‘diminished the trust placed in him and in the provision of legal services’ and had taken ‘unfair advantage’ of his ex-wife adding: ‘He knew that he had assets held on his behalf within the firm; Person B did not. He entered into a settlement agreement in the knowledge of those funds and in the knowledge that Person B would not be able to discover those funds. Person B agreed to the settlement agreement whilst ignorant of that capital.’
Finding Becker had acted dishonestly, the SDT added that the ‘proximity of his withdrawal of those funds to the conclusion of the divorce proceedings was telling and informative’.
The SDT also found Becker had caused money to be paid out of the firm’s client account but did not find he had caused or allowed money to be paid into the firm’s client account in breach of the accounts rules.
Striking Becker off the roll, the judgment said Becker – ‘an experienced solicitor’ of previous good character – was ‘motivated by his desire to conceal assets from Person B in circumstances where he did not consider monies held at the firm on his behalf to be a matrimonial asset’ and was ‘directly responsible and wholly culpable’ for his misconduct.
The SRA applied for £51,830.48 costs; the SDT found the time claimed was ‘excessive’ and ordered Becker to pay £23,655.68.
