Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months from 13 January 2022. Upon the expiry of that fixed term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions for two years: (i) that she might not practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or as a freelance solicitor; or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; or a money laundering reporting officer or a money laundering compliance officer.

The respondent had practised as a solicitor through the firm of Schwab & Co Legal Services Ltd, when neither she nor the firm had been authorised to do so by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, thereby breaching rules 1.1 and 10.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011, principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011, regulation 10.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations 2019, rule 5.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules 2019, and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.

She had failed to nominate a money laundering reporting officer, as required by regulation 21(3) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, nominate a money laundering compliance officer, as required by regulation 21(1)(a) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, and seek SRA approval for either herself or Mr Adrian Schwab, as either beneficial owners, managers or officers, and as required by regulation 26(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, thereby failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

She had operated a client bank account in a name other than that of a sole practitioner or firm recognised by the SRA, thereby breaching rules 13.3 of the 2011 Accounts Rules, failing to achieve outcome 7.4 of the 2011 code, and breaching principle 10 of the 2011 Principles, and breaching rule 3.2 of the 2019 Accounts Rules, and code 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

She had posted inaccurate and misleading information on the firm’s Facebook page in that she had created posts which suggested that she, the firm or Adrian Schwab had represented the client in court when they had not done so, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles.

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 respondent’s failure to comply with her regulatory obligations was the result of her lack of awareness of the requirements, rather than a deliberate and conscious decision to avoid regulatory oversight. She had placed client monies at risk, as they were not protected by the Compensation Fund, and had created misleading social media posts about the activities of the firm.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £25,000.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner of Karam, Missick and Traube LLP, the respondent had caused or allowed payments in the total sum of about €300,000 to be made into and out of the firm’s client account between Company B and Client Company A, and Person 1 and Company C in circumstances which amounted to the improper use of the firm’s client account as a banking facility in breach of rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Contrary to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 he had failed to carry out adequate customer due diligence in respect of Client Company A and Person 1, thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8, and failing to achieve outcomes 7.2 and 7.5 of the Code of Conduct 2011.

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

While no client had suffered financial loss, the respondent’s conduct had caused harm to the reputation of the profession.

A fine of £25,000 adequately reflected the admitted misconduct. Accordingly, the SDT approved the proposed sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

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

While working as a solicitor for Cartwright King, the respondent had inappropriately requested and received the sum of £100 from Client A, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had submitted, or caused or allowed to be submitted, a claim to the Legal Aid Agency for the case of Client A, when a payment had already been received from or claimed from Client A, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

He had made a telephone call to Client A requesting that he write a letter stating that the payment of £100 had been a gift and not payment for time and expenses, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

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. The respondent had admitted three instances of dishonesty, all of which had centred on his dealings with a client and handling of client money. The dishonesty was planned, deliberate and repeated. It was, however, to the respondent’s credit that he had made full admissions and accepted the likely consequence of his actions.

Given the seriousness of the admitted misconduct and the absence of any exceptional circumstances having been advanced by the respondent or evident on the papers, the public interest required the imposition of an order striking the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,950.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £6,000, and further that he should be subject to the following conditions: that he might not (i) act as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) act as compliance officer for legal practice or compliance officer for finance and administration for any authorised or recognised body; (iii) hold client money; (iv) be a signatory on any client account; (v) provide legal services as an employed or freelance and/or consultant solicitor offering reserved or unreserved services under regulations 10.2 (a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations, aside from in connection with his engagement as a consultant with SW Law (SRA number 558154), without express prior approval of the SRA; (vi) give any solicitor undertakings to any third party; (vii) with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor at Kitsons LLP (the firm), the respondent had transferred, or caused or allowed the transfer of, approximately £40,000 from the firm’s client account to, or for the benefit of, client C, in breach of an undertaking which he had provided to Stephen Morgan & Co Solicitors, thereby breaching rules 1.02, 1.06 and 10.05(1)(a) and 10.05(2) of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegation 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 to the required standard that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent had derived no personal benefit from his actions, indeed they appeared to have led to him suffering a loss of at least £20,000. He had only sought to recover money from his client in 2017. There was no allegation of dishonesty.

A considerable period of time had passed since the misconduct and there had apparently been no further regulatory issues. In all the circumstances the SDT considered that there was no risk of repetition of the misconduct as the SRA proposed to place very strict limitations upon the respondent’s future practice, including that he would be limited to working in the firm where he was currently employed.

The respondent had been thoroughly cooperative throughout the proceedings. The circumstances of the case were very particular and the SDT concluded that the misconduct had been accurately assessed as moderately serious and that the fine proposed was appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

On 29 March 2022, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into Lyons Wilson and into the practice of Ian Caunt Wilson, of Victoria Buildings, Albert Square, 1-7 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4DF.

The grounds for intervention into Mr Wilson’s practice were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Ian Wilson’s clients (or former or potential clients) – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The grounds for intervention into Lyons Wilson were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the firm – paragraph 32(1)(e) 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 (0333 321 4406, interventions@stephensons.co.uk), has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 31 March 2022.