Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While in practice at Hillyer McKeown LLP, the respondent had signed two affidavits to confirm that the affidavits had been signed and sworn in her presence, when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 11.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

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 on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent was an experienced solicitor who was solely responsible for her conduct. She had caused harm to the reputation of the profession and had undermined the trust placed in her and the provision of legal services.

The SDT accepted that the misconduct had not been planned, and that the respondent had insight into her misconduct. She had made open and frank admissions and had cooperated with the investigation into her conduct. The SDT considered that her departure from the standards expected of her was serious.

The only appropriate sanction in all the circumstances was to strike the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,810.

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

The respondent had represented DC and JN. She had failed to inform them that she had accepted settlement of their damages claims for substantially less than the amount that she had advised that their claims were worth.

She had also failed to inform them of an offer to settle the costs claims on their behalf, and had failed to obtain their authority before settling those claims.

JN and DC had previously been represented by MW. The respondent had given MW an undertaking that she would revert to them with regard to any settlement offer of costs, MW being entitled to a proportion of any such settlement. She had breached that undertaking, and had settled the costs and retained the entirety of the costs paid.

In order to justify retaining the costs, the respondent had fabricated documents to evidence that she had provided DC and JN with costs information when that was not the case. Her conduct in that regard was dishonest. She had failed to cooperate with investigations by the SRA and LeO in relation to complaints made by JH. She had breached her statutory duties and caused the firm to breach its statutory duties.

The respondent had failed to comply with court orders. She had been found to be in contempt of court and had been committed to prison.

In so acting the respondent had breached or had failed to achieve the following: principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; outcomes 1.2, 1.12 and 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; rule 8.1(a) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011; rules 14.1, 17.1, 17.2 and 18.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; outcome 10.6 of the code; principle 2 of the 2019 Principles; rule 3.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019; rule 8.1 of the Code for Firms; paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974; rules 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019; and, in breach of her obligations under rule 8.1 of the Code for Firms, had caused the firm to breach rules 3.2 and 3.3 and rule 7.1(a) thereof; principles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the 2019 Principles; committed a contempt of court and breached rules 2.5, 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code for Solicitors.

The respondent had been motivated by financial gain for herself and the firm. She had sought to subvert any investigation into complaints about her service. She was an experienced solicitor who had purposefully acted in flagrant breach of her regulatory obligations.

Her assertion that her conduct had caused no harm was reprehensible and demonstrated a complete lack of insight and remorse.

Her misconduct was aggravated by the numerous findings of dishonesty, and was further aggravated by being deliberate, calculated and repeated and having continued over a period of time.

There were no features that mitigated her misconduct.

Given the very serious nature of the respondent’s misconduct, which included dishonesty, any sanction short of striking off the roll would be insufficient. There were no exceptional circumstances of the nature referred to in the case of Sharma. The only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £109,682.

On 5 September 2022, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into Elvetham Law Ltd of 1 The Wharf, 16 Bridge Street, Birmingham B1 2JS. The non-lawyer manager at the firm was Andrew Thomas.

The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Thomas as a manager of the firm in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 1(2)(d) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007; and
• One or more of the terms of the firm’s licence have not been complied with – paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007.

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester, WN3 5BA, tel: 0333 321 4408, email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

The first date of attendance was 7 September 2022.