Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2008) should pay a fine of £20,000, and that he should be subject to the following conditions imposed by it: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice, a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration, or a money laundering reporting officer; (iii) hold client money; or (iv) be a signatory on any client account, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at Miramar Legal, the first respondent had caused or allowed an improper transfer of £3,184.12 from the client account to the office account, in respect of client matter A, thereby breaching rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had caused or allowed money to be withdrawn from the firm’s client account that exceeded money held for those clients, thereby breaching rule 20.6 of the rules and principle 10.

He had failed to maintain accurate accounting records, thereby breaching rule 29.1 of the rules.

He had failed to ensure that client money was promptly returned to clients as soon as there was no longer any proper reason to retain the funds, thereby breaching rule 14.3 of the rules, and rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

He had caused or allowed money to be withdrawn from the client account that exceeded money held for those clients, thereby breaching rule 5.3 of the 2019 rules.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the first 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 first respondent’s admissions had properly been made.

The first respondent had made good the shortfalls and no client had lost out financially.

Having determined that the proposed sanction was appropriate and proportionate, the SDT granted the application for matters to be resolved by way of the agreed outcome.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,735.

 

The SDT ordered that the second respondent (admitted 2008) should pay a fine of £5,000. The allegations against the first respondent had been dealt with previously by way of an agreed outcome approved by an earlier panel of the tribunal.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at Miramar Legal, the second respondent had caused or allowed an improper transfer of £3,184.12 from the client account to the office account, in respect of client matter A, thereby breaching rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had caused or allowed money to be withdrawn from the firm’s client account that exceeded money held for those clients, thereby breaching rule 20.6 of the rules and principle 10.

He had failed to maintain accurate accounting records, thereby breaching rule 29.1 of the rules.

He had failed to ensure that client money was promptly returned to clients as soon as there was no longer any proper reason to retain the funds, thereby breaching rule 14.3 of the 2011 rules, and rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

He had caused or allowed money to be withdrawn from the client account that exceeded money held for those clients, thereby breaching rule 5.3 of the 2019 rules.

The second respondent had admitted the allegations against him on a strict liability basis. The case against him had been advanced in a passive sense.

There was no indication that his misconduct had arisen from planned or spontaneous actions and he had had no direct control of the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct, but he had responsibilities as a partner in the firm.

As an experienced solicitor the second respondent should have anticipated that, by allowing someone else to have control of the firm where he had liabilities as a partner, problems could arise.

His misconduct needed to be marked by the imposition of a financial penalty.

While the second respondent’s role was described as ‘passive’ and the allegations against him were narrowly framed on a strict liability basis, his failure to exercise his responsibilities as a partner in respect of client monies and client account, however low or non-existent his involvement in the firm at any given time and whatever his reason for remaining in the partnership, took the misconduct to a higher level. A partner’s responsibilities could not be abrogated.

A fine of £5,000 appropriately reflected the different levels of responsibility between the two respondents and their different positions overall in respect of the misconduct.

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

 

The SRA intervened on 15 July 2022 into the remainder of the recognised body, Thornhill Solicitors Ltd, formerly of Suite 105, 49 Piccadilly House, Manchester M1 2AP. The firm closed on 21 February 2021. Peter Thornhill was the firm’s sole director and beneficial owner 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) of schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Thornhill does not hold a current practising certificate.

No intervention agent has been appointed.

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