Decisions and interventions: 30 October 2027

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

Between 22 October 2018 and September 2019, the respondent had misled (i) TT, IW, and PJ (the investors) into believing that following receipt of the completed transfer form, completion monies and sourcing fee, she would complete the transfer of 9 A Street to IW and PJ’s names but had failed to do so, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; (ii) the SRA, on 14 February 2022, by stating that the investors had entered into a standard common law management tenancy with an option to purchase when that was not true; and (iii) the court, on 16 January 2023, by stating in her defence and counterclaim that the investors had wanted a residential purchase lease option until they were ready to finalise the registration process when that was untrue, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2019. The respondent had acted dishonestly. 

While in practice as a solicitor, manager, COLP, COFA and MLRO and sole owner of an authorised body (a recognised sole practice) trading as Creative Legal Solutions Limited the respondent had, between 28 August 2024 and 17 January 2025, caused or allowed client money to be held with Tide Platform Limited which was (i) outside a client account; (ii) not available on demand; (iii) not returned promptly; and outside a branch (or the head office) of a bank, thereby breaching principles 2 and 7 of the 2019 Principles, paragraph 4.2 of the Code for Solicitors, paragraph 9.1(b) and 9.2(a) of the Code for of Conduct for Firms and rules 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 3.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

The respondent’s dishonest actions in relation to the investors had been planned and she had acted in breach of trust. She had exploited and misled a vulnerable community. She had caused significant damage to the reputation of the legal profession. Her misconduct was of the utmost seriousness. 

A finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll. No such exceptional circumstances had been found. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £47,939. 

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Blackhurst Budd Limited, on 3 January 2023, the respondent had asked a colleague to hide the file of client A, with the intention that the firm would thereby be prevented from discovering that she had not undertaken work on the file and had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs. 

On 17 January 2023, the respondent had made false statements to the managing director of the firm during meetings, in an attempt to mislead him about work undertaken on the file of client A and her request to a colleague to hide that file, and had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code for Solicitors.

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

The SDT had noted that the respondent had admitted dishonesty arising from her deliberate concealment of a client file and the making of false and misleading statements to her employer. It had taken into account the mitigation put forward on the respondent’s behalf, including the circumstances relating to her mental health. Nevertheless, the SDT had determined that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

Accordingly, the SDT had approved the sanction proposed by the parties.

The SDT ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months from 20 July 2026.  

Between 16 June 2006 and 13 May 2015, while acting as receiver and/or deputy in relation to the property and financial affairs of her client, Client A, under a Court of Protection Order, the respondent had failed to protect the interests of Client A and to comply with the requirements of the order in that she had: (i) failed to transfer or take any adequate steps to transfer the title of the property into Client A’s name when directed to do so by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG); (ii) failed to address concerns regarding the tenancy at the property and to take steps to ensure the tenancy was placed on a formal footing when directed to do so by the OPG; and (iii) failed to take adequate steps to ensure that Client A benefitted from the property rental payments. She had thereby breached rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breached principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

Between 15 May 2015 and 21 September 2022, while acting as receiver and/or deputy in relation to the property and financial affairs of her client, Client A, under a Court of Protection Order, the respondent had failed to protect the interests of Client A and to comply with the requirements of the order in that she had (i) failed to transfer or to take any adequate steps to effect the transfer of title of the property into Client A’s name; and (ii) failed to take adequate steps to commence proceedings for breach of trust. She had thereby failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the code; and breached principles 2 and 4 of the 2011 Principles, paragraphs 4.3 and 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELS and RFLs and principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019.

Between 16 June 2006 and 15 June 2022, while acting as receiver and/or deputy in relation to the property and financial affairs of her client, Client A, under a Court of Protection Order, the respondent had submitted annual reports for the periods 16 June 2007 to 15 June 2021 to the OPG signed with a statement of truth knowing that the contents of the reports were incomplete and inaccurate. She had thereby breached rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 SRA Handbook; and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the agreed outcome proposals 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. 

While the respondent’s actions and inactions had not been planned, they had been repeated and sustained over a long period of time. It was an aggravating factor that Client A was a vulnerable person who was subject to a Court of Protection Order. The respondent had shown some insight by acting to put safeguards in place.

The misconduct was very serious, which was reflected in an order for suspension. A fixed period of six months was proportionate and in the interests of justice, as it would give the respondent time to reflect fully on her shortcomings so that it would never be repeated in future.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,821. 

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Harwood Solicitors, between April and May 2022, the respondent had sent messages on WhatsApp to person A, a barrister who was instructed by the firm, which were inappropriate, unwanted and sexually motivated, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

Between 19 and 28 August 2023, the respondent had sent messages on Facebook messenger and WhatsApp, and had left two voicemail messages, to person B, an individual with whom he had initiated contact on Facebook messenger and to whom he had indicated his interest in employing as his personal assistant or similar, which were inappropriate and sexually motivated, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and paragraph 1.2 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2019 for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between 28 February 2024 and 2 March 2024, the respondent had sent messages to person C on LinkedIn which were inappropriate and unwanted, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and paragraph 1.2 of the code.

The respondent had admitted all the allegations.

The SDT had found, as the respondent had admitted, that his conduct had been sexually motivated. It had caused direct harm to each of Persons A, B and C and to the reputation of the profession. His inability or unwillingness to desist from inappropriate communications was extremely concerning. The misconduct had been aggravated by its deliberate, repeated, and persistent nature.

The SDT had taken account of the mitigation advanced on the respondent’s behalf, but it had not materially reduced the seriousness of the misconduct. The absence of physical sexual misconduct meant that the misconduct had not become more serious still; it had not rendered the proven conduct anything other than very serious.

The misconduct had not been isolated. It had involved three separate women, repeated disregard of clear requests to stop, the continuation of misconduct while regulatory investigations were ongoing, victim-blaming responses, and a lack of genuine insight demonstrated over a sustained period.

The respondent’s departure from the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor was so serious that the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession required that he be struck off the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £75,000.

On 24 September 2026, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the above-named recognised body, formerly based at Arkwright House, Parsonage Gardens, Manchester M3 2LF. 

The firm entered administration on 21 February 2025.

The ground for intervention was: a relevant insolvency event has occurred in relation to Sandstone Legal Ltd – paragraph 32(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA (tel: 0333 321 4403; email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The intervention notices were served on 24 September 2026. 

On 24 September 2026, the SRA intervened into David Ebert LLP, formerly at Unit 17, Hedge End Business Centre, Botley Road, Hedge End, Southampton SO30 2AU.

The remaining director at the firm was Aminah Bokhari. 

The firm went into liquidation on 28 May 2026. 

The ground for intervention was: a relevant insolvency event has occurred in relation to the firm when it was a recognised body (paragraph 32(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX, (tel: 01202 786 341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.