Decisions and intervention

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

Having been admitted as a solicitor of the senior courts, the respondent had signed a lease for property A to confirm that he had witnessed person A sign that lease in his presence, when he had not, and in doing so had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

There was clearly harm to the profession when a solicitor acted dishonestly. The respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it was deliberate and there was a vulnerability due to the lack of literacy on the part of others.

The misconduct was mitigated by the fact that it was a single episode of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career. The respondent had cooperated with the SRA but his admissions had been less than open and frank, admitting on the one hand that he had acted as alleged, but at the same time denying breaches of the SRA rules.

The usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off, and the circumstances in which such a sanction was not imposed were exceptional.

In the present case there was nothing that would justify a lesser sanction than a strike-off and so the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that the respondent’s name should be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,800.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,501.

The respondent had used a client account as a banking facility, and in doing so had breached Guidance Note (ix) to rule 15 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; rule 1.06 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2007; rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; rule 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.

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

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.

There were no previous adverse findings against the respondent and he had made full and frank admissions. He had fully recorded all of the transactions on the client ledgers and had believed, at the material times, that he was entitled to make the payments on behalf of his clients. He now accepted that using the client account in the way that he had was contrary to his regulatory obligations.

The nature of the respondent’s misconduct was such that sanctions of no order or a reprimand did not adequately reflect its seriousness, but it was not so serious that the respondent’s ability to practise should be interfered with.

A fine at the lower end of the SDT’s Indicative Fine Band 3, namely a fine of £7,501, adequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct. Accordingly, the SDT approved the outcome proposed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £21,650.

On 1 December 2022 the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Emma Rowe, practising at Emma Rowe Solicitors, formerly at 16a Newington Green, Islington, London N16 9PU. The intervention was effected on 25 January 2023.

The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Rowe’s part in connection with her former practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• Rowe had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions PO Box, 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk), has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.