Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £16,000.

While in practice as a solicitor, and from January 2015, the sole practitioner, compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration at Forman Welch & Bellamys, formerly Bellamys, the respondent had failed, between 2010 and 2018, to progress probate matters, either promptly or at all, resulting in legacies due to beneficiaries remaining unpaid, thereby breaching principles 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011.

For tax years 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, he had failed to submit tax liabilities arising from matter A’s estate to HMRC within the required time period, thereby incurring penalties and interest due from the estate in the sum of £58,923, thereby breaching principles 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the 2011 Principles.

The respondent’s failures had resulted in delays in payments to beneficiaries, charities and HMRC. Harm to the reputation of the profession had also been caused.

The misconduct was aggravated by the fact that the absence of progression on the matters had occurred on more than one file and over a period of several years. In that time the respondent had ignored numerous reminders. There was a degree of vulnerability inherent in probate work in that it involved dealing with the estate of a deceased client.

The misconduct was mitigated by the respondent’s insight, which the SDT accepted was genuine.

The appropriate penalty in all the circumstances was a fine of £16,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. Between 23 October and 29 November 2019, while in consultation with his clients who had been arrested and detained in a custody suite at a police station, the respondent had passed money to them and attempted to conceal his actions from the custody officers, thereby dishonestly breaching, up to 25 November 2019, principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and from 25 November 2019, principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

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 was an extremely experienced criminal law and duty solicitor who was aware of the proper mechanism for providing any money or items to clients where that might be warranted. He had sought to conceal his actions in the knowledge that they were improper. He had had full control of the circumstances of his misconduct.

Public confidence in, and the reputation of, the profession required no lesser sanction than the respondent should be removed from the roll. That proposed sanction was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the Sanctions Guidance.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,419.

On 23 August 2022 the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the recognised sole practice of Kate Okoli, who traded as Grace-Springs Solicitors. The firm was based at 72 Longbridge Road, Barking IG11 8SF. The first date of attendance was 25 August 2022.The grounds for intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Okoli in connection with her practice as a solicitor at the firm (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• Okoli had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 – part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Kate Stewart 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.

Okoli’s practising certificate is suspended as a result of the intervention decision.