Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered the respondent to pay a fine of £3,000.

When suspected of having driven a vehicle and having been required to provide a specimen or specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the secretary of state pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A thereof, the respondent had failed without reasonable excuse to do so, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

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.

In respect of the level of culpability, the respondent had had direct control over the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct. In terms of the level of harm, her conduct had had the potential to cause harm to other road users. In respect of aggravating features, she had a previous conviction for driving while under the influence of excess alcohol. The respondent was a criminal solicitor who was aware of the sentencing guidelines and knew the consequences of failure to provide a specimen.

Mitigating features were that the offence had involved a vehicle being driven a short distance and there had been no damage to any property or injury to any person; the respondent had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity; she had notified the applicant immediately; she had admitted the misconduct at the earliest stage and had shown significant remorse and insight; she had completed all of the conditions attached to her sentence; she had notified her employers as soon she was charged and resigned her position leading to a significant period of financial hardship; part of the sentence imposed involved unpaid work within the community, and had been undertaken at a local charity; since completing that work element of her sentence, she had continued to volunteer at the charity; and the offence had been a complete error of judgement on the part of the respondent.

The proposed sanction of a £3,000 level 3 fine was proportionate and sufficient to protect the overarching public interest. Ordinarily the appropriate fine would have been in the region of £8,000, but the applicant had acceded to a reduction in that figure having taken into account the respondent’s means.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,000.

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

The respondent had caused or allowed documents to be submitted to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited in support of a loan application which he knew to contain a signature purporting to be that of an individual with an interest in the property against which the loan was to be secured, AB, when he knew that the signature was not that of AB, and thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had produced or caused to be produced to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited in support of the loan application a letter which purported to have been written by Mr PS of Firm A, when he knew that was not the case and/or contained information about his employment at Firm A which he knew to be inaccurate and misleading, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had caused or allowed one or more of the following documents to be submitted to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited in support of the loan application: (i) an undated legal charge; (ii) a letter purportedly from Firm B Limited dated 31 January 2018; and (iii) an affidavit purportedly dated 18 January 2018, which he knew to contain a signature purporting to be that of another solicitor, Mr DO, when he knew that the signature was not that of Mr DO, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had caused or allowed one or more documents to be submitted to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited in support of the loan application which he knew to contain a signature purporting to be that of an individual, Ms ST, when he knew that the signature was not that of Ms ST, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had produced or caused to be produced to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited in support of the loan application documents purporting to relate to employment by a firm of solicitors, firm A, which he knew to be forged and misleading, namely pay slips and a purported P60 form, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had produced or caused to be produced to Loan Logics Limited and/or Exclusive Finance UK Limited a photocopy of a passport which purported to have been, but which he knew was not, certified by a solicitor, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

He had provided misleading and inaccurate information to the SRA, in that he had falsely stated that the purpose of a loan application was to obtain funds to acquire an interest in his matrimonial home when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7.

The respondent’s conduct was dishonest.

The respondent’s motivation was personal financial gain. He had misled the applicant. His culpability was high. Significant harm had been caused.

The misconduct, relating to reliance on inauthentic documents for personal financial gain, was so blatantly unacceptable that the respondent must inevitably have known that it breached his obligations as a solicitor, even though it was conduct taking place outside his practice.

The appropriate sanction was strike-off from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,700.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent should pay a fine of £5,000, and that the second respondent should pay a fine of £11,000. 

While in practice as a solicitor and a director at the second respondent, the first respondent had acted on behalf of client A in circumstances where he knew an omission had been made by the firm in a prior but related instruction, which could have given rise to a claim against the firm by client A, but the first respondent had failed to advise client A to that effect, thereby breaching outcome 1.16 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and principle 4 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had acted on behalf of client A in circumstances giving rise to a significant risk of an own interest conflict, thereby breaching outcome 3.4 of the code and principle 4.

The second respondent had failed to take any or adequate steps to prevent the firm from acting on behalf of client A in circumstances in which, in a prior but related instruction, an omission had been made by the firm which could have given rise to a claim against the firm by client A, but client A had not been advised to that effect, thereby breaching outcome 1.16 of the code and principle 4.

It had failed to have in place systems and controls appropriate to prevent solicitors in the firm from acting in circumstances giving rise to an own interest conflict, thereby breaching outcome 3.2 of the code and principle 8.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome, submitting that the outcome proposed was consistent with the SDT’s Guidance Note on Sanctions.

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.

The misconduct of the first respondent was ‘moderately serious’ and the public interest was served in that regard by the imposition of a financial penalty of £5,000. The misconduct of the second respondent was ‘more serious’ and the public interest was served in that regard by the imposition of a financial penalty of £11,000.

The SDT therefore approved the agreed outcome.

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £17,400 on a joint and several basis.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for an indefinite period from 24 June 2021.

The respondent had submitted a judicial review application which had the potential to mislead a court, in that he wrongly said he had followed the pre-action protocol; and he had implied that there had been a delay since 2015, when the Home Office had dealt with the matter in 2017. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcome 5.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The respondent had submitted a judicial review application which he had drafted incompetently. The application complained of delay by the Home Office and did not deal with an enclosure that showed there had not been any delay. The respondent had either not seen the letter, which demonstrated incompetence, or had seen it, in which case he should have dealt with it implications. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 and failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5.

The respondent had accepted instructions and money from client A in order to bring a claim against a defendant in Sri Lanka. He had failed to issue proceedings and client A had asked for the return of his money. The respondent did not reply, and therefore breached principles 4, and 6.

The respondent had untruthfully told client C that he had not received £2,000 from him, even though he had previously acknowledged its receipt, in breach of principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

On a number of occasions in 2018, the respondent had untruthfully described himself as a notary public, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6, and failing to achieve outcome 8.1. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent’s motivation was not financial or malicious. He had a humanitarian ethos and had been trying to assist people as his personal references attested. However, that altruism had extended to misleading the court. As regards the notary public allegation, the respondent’s motivation was to exaggerate his status to give himself an importance which he did not have.

Harm had been caused to the reputation of the profession by the respondent’s actions, which included dishonesty, lack of integrity and failure to uphold the law and the proper administration of justice.

Clients had been potentially vastly prejudiced as he had not acted in their best interests.

The usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off. However, there was a unique combination of circumstances in this case including, but not limited to, the respondent’s health. Those factors, taken together, were such that it would be unjust to strike the respondent from the roll. The appropriate sanction in this particular case was an indefinite suspension.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £750.

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

The respondent had sent a schedule about her financial performance (the FP schedule) at Taylor Wessing Solicitors LLP, covering the financial years 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, to JB of Red Law Recruitment for the purposes of forwarding on to Dentons LLP, when she knew or should have known that the information contained in the FP schedule was untrue, in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

She had approved a proposal form which had been submitted to the partnership admission committee of Dentons LLP, which included information that she had provided relating to her billable hours and fees generated while she was a partner at Taylor Wessing, when she knew or should have known that the information she had provided was untrue, in breach of principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

She had signed a proposal form for submission to the partnership admission committee of Dentons LLP in which she confirmed the following: ‘The information supplied in this document is true and accurate as at the date supplied and is supplied in good faith. I have made all the appropriate disclosures in relation to my candidacy in this form. I understand that Dentons will rely on the information in this form’, when she knew or should have known that the information supplied in the document was not true or accurate, in breach of principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

She had sent an email to SS, a partner in Dentons LLP, which she knew or should have known misrepresented her billings in relation to client MM, in breach of principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

She had provided Hill Dickinson LLP with a business plan and a schedule of her hours and billings as part of a recruitment process for her to become a partner, when she knew or should have known that the information in the business plan and in the schedule was untrue, in breach of principles 2 and 6. She had acted dishonestly.

The harm to the reputation of the profession caused by an experienced and successful solicitor dishonestly providing misleading information in order to secure personal advancement was very serious. Her conduct was deliberate, calculated and had been repeated over time.

The respondent had an otherwise unblemished record and had produced extremely positive testimonials which spoke about her professionalism and integrity. She had provided an account of being subject to commercial pressures and the pressure to work excessive hours as well as having to cope with very trying personal circumstances at the relevant time.

The overall seriousness of the misconduct was high: that was inevitable given the multiple findings of dishonesty.

There were no exceptional circumstances satisfying the requirements of Sharma and James. Accordingly, the findings against the respondent including dishonesty required that the appropriate sanction was strike-off from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £51,615.

On 27 July 2021 an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the recognised sole practice of John Leonard Turner who traded as Lindsay Sait and Turner, of Kingfield House, Kingfield Road, Woking GU22 9EG. The firm also had branch offices at Suite 205, Basepoint Business Centre, 377-399 London Road, Camberley GU15 3HL and 1 High Street, Knaphill, Woking GU21 2PG. The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of former clients of Turner (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The SRA will be making arrangements to collect the files, accounting records and money relating to this firm.