Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £10,000. 

By driving when the proportion in her blood of (i) a controlled drug, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) (i.e. not less than 36 microgrammes per litre of blood); and (ii) a controlled drug, benzoylecgonine (i.e. not less than 96 microgrammes per litre of blood) exceeded the specified limit, contrary to section 5A(1)(a) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the respondent had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

By being in possession of controlled drugs, namely: (i) 0.61 grams of cocaine, a controlled drug of Class A, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; (ii) 1.06 grams of MDMA, a controlled drug of Class A 1, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; (iii) 1.6 grams of cannabis resin, a controlled drug of Class B, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (iv) 19 tablets of diazepam, a controlled drug of Class C, in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 she had breached principles 2 and 6.

The parties 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 gravamen of the offending was driving while unfit to do so. That offence was aggravated by the respondent’s possession of cannabis, cocaine and MDMA, all of which were illegal substances.

The SDT had assessed the level of the admitted misconduct as ‘more serious’, such that a level 3 financial penalty was required to protect the overarching public interest, namely the protection of the public, the declaration and upholding of proper standards within the profession, and maintenance of public confidence in the regulatory system.

The jointly proposed financial penalty of £10,000 was appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,500.

On 6 December 2022, an adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remainder of the above-named practice of the late John Bayles, who practised as John Bayles & Co, formerly of 68 Saddler Street, Durham DH1 3NP.

Mr Bayles passed away on 8 September 2022.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974). The SRA will be making arrangements to collect the remaining practice papers relating to this firm.

On 1 December 2022, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into Rodgers & Burton and into the practice of David Moore, practising at Rodgers & Burton, which was based at 50 Vineyard Path, London SW14 8JN. The first date of attendance was 2 December 2022.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of current or former clients of David Moore and/or the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985 and paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974 as amended).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions PO Box, 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX, tel: 0300 247 2470, email: interventions@shma.co.uk has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.