Decisions and interventions

The SDT refused the applicant’s application for restoration to the roll.

He had been struck off the roll on 11 December 2019. The strike-off related to his convictions of harassment offences in Norway and his failure to notify his regulator about the convictions.

An application in such a case had to be supported by a statement setting out details of the original order of the SDT leading to strike-off; details of the applicant’s employment and training history since the order of strike-off; details of the applicant’s intentions as to and any offers of employment within the legal profession in the event that the application was successful.

Notwithstanding a consideration of those factors, the SDT’s core function was to determine whether the applicant had shown that he was a fit and proper person to be restored to the roll, and that restoring him to the roll would not damage the reputation of the legal profession.

Much, if not all, the material submitted by the applicant related principally to the matters for which he had been struck off the roll and did not address the critical issues which an application for restoration would be expected to address as set out above.

His application for restoration was a device to go behind his conviction and an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided upon and appealed, unsuccessfully, by him: his failure to grasp that point was indicative of his absolute lack of insight on the conduct which had resulted in strike-off.

He had not addressed at all the essential issue, namely his lack of insight into the offences of which he had been convicted (whatever the provocation may have been), and his need to comply with all laws and regulations relevant to him as a solicitor, not just those he judged to be relevant.

The application was almost in its entirety an attempt to re-open the previously concluded, and unsuccessfully appealed, decision of the SDT, and was bound to fail.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £3,640.

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

While in practice as a trainee solicitor at Stachiw Bashir Green Solicitors the respondent had, in a conveyancing transaction regarding property 1, inappropriately signed replies to requisitions on title in the name of Janet Butterfield; and inappropriately signed a TR1 form in the name of Janet Butterfield; thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

In a conveyancing transaction regarding property 2, she had inappropriately signed a certificate of title in the name of Janet Butterfield, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

In a conveyancing transaction regarding property 3, she had inappropriately signed a certificate of title in the name of Janet Butterfield, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

In each case she had acted dishonestly.

The respondent’s motivation was unclear, but she had appeared to want to take a shortcut and had possibly wanted to prove herself, having completed her training contract.

Her misconduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated. It had continued over a period of weeks and involved a number of documents. There was an element of concealment in that the forged signatures concealed the fact that Ms Butterfield had not signed the documents herself. The respondent had sought to blame her employers for her misconduct by asserting that they had given permission to her to do so.

There were no mitigating features. Although the respondent had admitted that what she had done was wrong, her explanation of the circumstances in which she had acted had not demonstrated genuine insight.

The misconduct was at the highest level and the only appropriate sanction was a strike-off. There were no exceptional circumstances that would make such an order unjust in the present case. The only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that the respondent be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,686.

On 3 February 2022, the SRA intervened into the remnants of the recognised body Lauriston Saggar LLP, formerly of 48 Blandford Street, London W1U 7HU. The firm went into liquidation on 18 February 2020. Leanne Nourrice was the firm’s sole manager at the date of closure.

The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of former clients (paragraph 32(1)(e) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Nourrice does not hold a current practising certificate.

No agent has been appointed.

The SRA will be making arrangements to collect the remaining practice papers as soon as possible.

The SRA has intervened into the licensed body Integral Law Limited. This decision was made by a single adjudicator.

The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of 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 1(2)(f) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

No intervention agent has been appointed.