Report comment

It rather looks as if this report struck others as it did me.

I've considered three decisions.

Smeed. "A solicitor struck off the roll could have something to offer the legal profession, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has said.

Mark Bryon Smeed, . . . admitted creating and sending correspondence dated 14 November 2013 and 6 January 2014 to the Legal Aid Agency and his client that was false and/or misleading . . . . .

The tribunal accepted Smeed’s admissions and found . . . . dishonesty proved . . . .

. . . . . a client had complained to the firm [which] investigated, setting out its findings in a letter to Smeed, who resigned . . . . .

The firm then reported to the SRA . . . . [and] . . wrote to the client to apologise and paid compensation.

The regulator wrote to Smeed about the allegation . . .[who replied that] . . . . he had been carrying an increasingly heavy workload at the time, and the situation was getting more and more stressful.

The judgment states: ‘He was working extremely hard and his caseload, which was primarily public or children work, was starting to come under the strain of court deadlines. He agreed that there had been delay on his part in progressing this client’s matter due to all the other demands on his time.

‘It was against this deteriorating background that he created the letter and email which formed the basis of the allegation.’

The firm’s ‘thorough’ internal investigation did not reveal any further cases and no issue arose in terms of the court being misled . . . . .

. . . the tribunal said Smeed showed insight and courage in his full and frank admission at an early stage. His mitigation submissions were ‘heartfelt’."

He was under the cosh and stood to gain nothing. He might, I suppose, have been sacked for not cutting the mustard.

Partington. "A conveyancing solicitor with more than 40 years’ experience has been fined for backdating a key document in a commercial property transaction.

. . . . David Partington admitted backdating the TR1 Land Registry transfer document by two weeks at the request of his client. . . . . . to avoid the possibility of other parties placing restrictions on the

. . . . Partington . . . had faced up to his error and co-operated with the SRA. . . [and] . . had enjoyed an unblemished career for 41 years and this misconduct was an ‘aberration’ from his usual behaviour.

It was submitted that Partington, who turns 70 next year, had been off work following a family bereavement and house fire. When he returned, JK had pestered him to alter the document, an act that Partington accepted was wrong.

Testimonials on behalf of the solicitor were given by a former president of the Birmingham Law Society and by His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones, of Warwick Crown Court."

He was stupid. He stood to keep a client, who may have been a bully. Third parties were to be deprived of potential remedies.

Saunders. "The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has ordered a solicitor who provided inaccurate explanations to the Legal Aid Agency for late payment claims to be struck off the roll despite 14 ‘impressive’ testimonials, including from three members of the judiciary. . . . [and] said it was clear that Mark Saunders 'remained highly regarded’ and 'appeared to be someone whom other solicitors regarded as a credit to the profession’.

Between January 2013 and January 2015, Saunders was alleged to have knowingly prepared and signed costs claim forms bearing incorrect dates for submission to the agency. Between November 2011 and January 2015 he was alleged to have created and sent correspondence which provided ‘untrue’ information to the agency, to support payment claims submitted outside the permitted timeframe.

The tribunal’s judgment states that Saunders admitted the allegations.

On 29 April 2015 the firm submitted a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority . . [and on] . . 30 April 2015 Saunders himself reported matters . . . , admitting that the explanations he had given to the agency for the late claims were incorrect. . . . . .

. . . . senior partner John Douglas Wesencraft told the tribunal that the firm employed Saunders 'as he was a superb advocate whose work had been impressive since he joined’. Wesencraft found Saunders to be a 'man of the utmost integrity, who was willing to take on any work asked’.

Another Newcastle solicitor told the tribunal that the legal profession in the Newcastle, Teesside and Tyneside areas knew about Saunders’ misconduct because he had been 'candid about it’.

A QC told the tribunal that 'based on many years of observing colleagues, the respondent’s integrity stood him out as remarkable’.

The tribunal read written testimonials from three members of the judiciary, five barristers, three solicitors and another involved in legal services."

He was entitled to the money, unless in using its rules the LA authorities could stop him. He did do it over a considerable time. Nonetheless in the grim financial world in which I understand its practitioners live .. . . . . .

He was, it seems to me, heading for the circuit bench if he'd wanted it. Three judges weren't fazed by it so that they cut him adrift. Clearly wrong, clearly serious, but suspension would have done. His judicial aspirations were over.

I don't see consistency in these decisions. The post sentence hope in Smeed indicates that a less timid tribunal might have suspended him. I can't see how presenting a false deed as Partington did is not very serious and without any real excuse. In Saunders, he was the victim of tight rules and stupidity. He was owed the money.