Decisions and interventions

On 27 January 2022 the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Alexandra Gittoes-Davies at Devereux & Co. The firm was based at 52a High Street, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS9 3DZ. The first date of attendance was 31 January 2022.

The grounds for intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of the firm (paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

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

On 26 January 2022, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the above-named  recognised body. The firm closed on 29 December 2016.

The grounds of intervention 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 a manager or employee (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

No intervention agent has been appointed.

On 6 January 2022 the SRA intervened into the remnants of the practice of Peter Rabin, formerly of Rubens Rabin & Co, Farmar Miller Rabin Gordon and Darlingtons LLP.

The grounds of intervention were:

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

Rabin’s practising certificate was not affected by the intervention.

No intervention agent was appointed.

On 17 January 2022 an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of the recognised sole practice of Upali Sudusinghe, who traded as Palis Solicitors, 157 Kilburn High Road, London NW6 7HU. The firm closed in 2017.

The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of former clients (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.

The SRA has intervened into the remnants of the practice of Douglas Henry Walton (deceased), who practised as DH Walton from 166A High Street Burton on Trent DE141JE. This decision was made by a single adjudicator.

The grounds for the intervention was that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of Walton (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

No intervention agent has been appointed.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the appellant’s appeal made under section 44(E) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) be allowed and that the adjudicator’s decision dated 30 June 2021 be revoked with immediate effect.

The allegation was that the appellant had left a Christmas card on the desk of a female work colleague, KB, that contained inappropriate sexualised references.

The adjudicator had found the allegation proved and that it amounted to a breach of principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

She had decided to rebuke the appellant, to publish the rebuke and had ordered him to pay costs of £600.

The overarching submission made by the appellant was that the adjudicator had been wrong to find that the act of giving a Christmas card containing inappropriate sexual references and comments to KB had taken place in a work setting and that accordingly the appellant had breached principle 6.

The key question to be addressed was whether the alleged breaches could with reason be closely tied to the guidance set out in the Solicitor’s Handbook. That required an analysis by the adjudicator as to whether principle 6 was engaged in the case, by considering the substance of the events, and considering whether as a result principle 6 was engaged.

In her decision there was nothing to suggest that the adjudicator had considered whether there was evidence which linked the appellant’s giving of the Christmas card to the provision of legal services, as required by principle 6.

The reasoning given by the adjudicator as to why she had found a breach of principle 6 was not sufficient to satisfy the SDT as the appellate court.

The SDT was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the finding of the adjudicator was wrong and that the conclusion she had reached lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement was possible. It therefore revoked the adjudicator’s decision.

The SDT made no order for costs.