Decisions 9 October 2027

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 24 months from 30 April 2026 and that he should pay a fine of £20,000. 

While in practice as a sole practitioner at Grenville Young Solicitor (a recognised sole practice) and while practising as a freelance solicitor, the respondent had failed: (i) to cooperate with the SRA’s investigations between November 2019 and April 2023; and (ii) to cooperate with the SRA and its agents during and after the SRA’s intervention into his practice.

He had thereby breached principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles, and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

It appeared that the respondent’s actions had been planned. Two years had passed between the closure of the firm and the filing of a firm closure notification. The respondent had made a conscious decision not to engage with the SRA regarding the proper closure of the firm. 

The respondent’s conduct had harmed his former clients and the reputation of the profession. His conduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated. He had failed to deal with outstanding issues which had resulted in the intervention. 

His conduct had not involved any abuse of power for personal gain nor concealment of wrongdoing. The respondent had not sought to place the blame for his conduct on others. 

In all the circumstances, an immediate suspension for the period of 24 months and a fine of £20,000 represented the most appropriate and proportionate sanction that could be imposed to mark the undoubted seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession.

The case presented a warning that experienced professionals could make serious errors in judgment. Solicitors had a duty of care to their clients even after deciding to cease operating a firm, and they could not afford to forget or simply not meet that obligation. As legal professionals, they had to ensure that they had retained professional objectivity and to seek help from the regulator where there was a danger of such objectivity being compromised. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £11,940.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While in practice as a solicitor at Ellis Jones Solicitors LLP, on or around 27 August 2021, the respondent had provided misleading information to Person A (Client A’s daughter) and Client B by creating correspondence falsely dated 13 August 2021 that asked for an extension of time to deadlines of 19 and 20 August 2021, and had created emails falsely dated 24 August 2021 and 25 August 2021. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between March and April 2022, the respondent had provided misleading information to his supervising partner as to why an extension for Client A’s and Client B’s submissions on appeal had not been filed within time. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had admitted the allegations, including that his conduct had been dishonest in breach of principle 4.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome annexed to the judgment.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

Conduct such as that of the respondent was clearly dishonest. Given that clear dishonesty and lack of any exceptional circumstances, the SDT had determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. As that was the sanction proposed by the parties, the SDT approved the agreed outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,928.