Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)

Porter & Co Law Ltd

On 1 October 2021, the panel resolved to intervene into the above-named licensed body, based at 40 Benhil Avenue, Sutton SM1 4DA. The non-lawyer manager at the firm was Lee Kerr. The grounds of intervention were:

  • There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Kerr as a manager and as an employee of the firm in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007; and
  • One or more of the terms of the firm’s licence had not been complied with – paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the 2007 act.

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

The first date of attendance was 6 October 2021.

Crosby & Woods

On 8 October 2021 an adjudicator resolved to intervene into Crosby & Woods and the practice of David Crosby at the firm. The firm was based at Sussex House, 75 Church Road Hove, BN3 2BB.

The grounds for intervention into David Crosby were:

  • Crosby had been adjudged bankrupt (paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
  • It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Crosby is or was a trustee – (paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds for intervention into Crosby & Woods were:

  • It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of the firm is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as such a manager or employee (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Michael Veal of Lester Aldridge, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX; tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@la-law.com; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 11 October. Crosby’s practising certificate has been suspended.

Ifeolu Olumide Ogunshakin

Application 12180-2021

Admitted 2002

Hearing 10 August 2021

Reasons 31 August 2021

Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a fine of £10,000, and imposed the following conditions on him for an indefinite period: that he might not (i) be a manager or owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) practise on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations; (iii) be a legal practice or compliance officer for legal practice or a finance and administration or compliance officer for any authorised body; or (iv) hold or receive client money or act as a signatory to any client or office account or have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account, with liberty to apply to vary those conditions.

Between April 2018 and July 2020, while in practice as sole director and a solicitor at Mayflower Law Limited, the respondent had failed adequately to remedy breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 for the respective periods up to and after 25 November 2019, in relation to:

(a) establishing or maintaining proper accounting systems or proper internal control of those systems, contrary to rules 1.2(e) of the 2011 rules, and rule 8.1 of the 2019 rules;

(b) keeping accounting records properly written up or maintaining accurate records, contrary to rules 1.2(f), 29.1 and 29.2 of the 2011 rules, and rule 8.1 of the 2019 rules; and

(c) ensuring adequate client account reconciliations, contrary to rules 29.12 and 29.13 of the 2011 rules, and rule 8.3 of the 2019 rules.

He had thereby breached: rule 7.1 of the 2011 rules and rule 6.1 of the 2019 rules; principles 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019; and standards 4.2 and 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.10 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019, and standards 2, 8 and 9 of the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019.

The present case was one where the respondent had ‘taken his eye off the ball’ and had got himself and the firm into a complete shambles from which he had found it difficult to recover.

The respondent’s actions had neither been planned nor spontaneous but had been akin to a ‘slow motion car crash’ occurring over a number of years and in which millions of pounds had passed through his client account. His failures in relation to management of client money and management of the system of accounts and records of accounts, demonstrated a failure to run his business effectively and in accordance with sound financial principles over a protracted period of time.

The combination of a fine and an indefinite restriction order, with the conditions set out above, would be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct and provide adequate protection to the public from the risk of future harm from him.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £17,000.

Stephen Evans-Jones

Application 12172-2021

Admitted 2002

Hearing 6-8 July 2021

Reasons 7 September 2021

The SDT ordered the respondent to pay a fine of £50,000.

On 2 May 2018 the respondent had created letters which he had backdated to make them appear to be contemporaneous documents that had been created and sent on 19 February 2018 or 1 March 2018, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had caused or allowed letters that he had created and backdated on 2 May 2018 to be attached to particulars of claim dated 4 May 2018, as true copies of documents which had been created on the dates on which they purported to be created, knowing that the particulars of claim would be served on both the defendant’s solicitors and the court, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6, and outcome 5.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011

On 2 May 2019, he had signed a witness statement supported by a statement of truth which had been filed in possession proceedings and served on the defendant’s solicitors, in which he said that he could recall signing and dispatching letters and enclosures on 19 February 2018. That statement was inaccurate and misleading because on 2 May 2018, the respondent had created and backdated the letters dated 19 February 2018, which were appended to his witness statement. He had thereby breached principle 6.

The respondent’s motivation was expediency. His misconduct was very serious. The respondent’s actions had lacked integrity. The misconduct involved the creation of documents which were misleading on their face as to their true status and allowing them to be deployed in legal proceedings. Such conduct offended a cornerstone of legal practice, which was a requirement for all solicitors to be scrupulously accurate and to take particular care not to mislead. While the SDT had not found that the respondent had acted dishonestly, the creation, backdating and use in proceedings of letters was conduct in which no solicitor should engage. A fine of £50,000 was the appropriate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £11,483.