Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £2,000.

While in practice as a solicitor at Hill & Abbott Solicitors, the respondent had borrowed £6,000 from Person A and had failed to pay counsel’s fees.

He had thereby placed himself in a position of own-interest conflict, breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The motivation for the respondent’s misconduct was financial; he had sought a means of managing acute cashflow difficulties. The request for the loan was deliberate.

The respondent had no previous disciplinary record. The conduct was a single incident. While it had ultimately extended over a significant period of time, it related to one loan from one client. The respondent had demonstrated genuine insight into his conduct and remorse, and had cooperated with the SRA and the SDT.

The misconduct was serious and that seriousness, together with the protection of the reputation of the profession, required that a significant fine be imposed. A fine of £8,000 was appropriate but, having reviewed the respondent’s statement of means, a fine of £2,000 had been imposed.

A reduction should also be applied to the costs which would otherwise be awarded. The assessed costs of £10,350 were accordingly reduced to £5,000.

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

By failing to submit an application for permanent residence in the UK on behalf of his client YQM when instructed or at all, he had breached or failed to achieve rules 1.04, 1.05, and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; principles 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; and outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

By failing to submit an application for leave/indefinite leave to remain in the UK on behalf of his client YTL when instructed or at all, he had breached or failed to achieve rules 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; rules 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the 2007 code; principles 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles; and outcome 1.2 of the 2011 code.

By making misleading and/or untrue statements to YQM and others in respect of the progress of her application for leave to remain in the UK, he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles. He had acted dishonestly.

By fabricating a letter purportedly sent by the Home Office, UK Border Agency in respect of YTL’s application for leave to remain in the UK, he had breached or failed to achieve principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles. He had acted dishonestly.

By making misleading and/or untrue statements to YTL and others in respect of the progress of her application for leave to remain in the UK, he had breached rules 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; rules 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the 2007 code; and principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Principles. He had acted dishonestly.

By failing to cooperate with the investigation undertaken by the SRA into the work undertaken on behalf of his clients YQM and YTL, he had breached or failed to achieve principles 2, 6 and 7 of the Principles; and outcomes 10.8 and 10.9 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

Given the three findings of dishonesty absent any exceptional circumstances, the only sanction which adequately served the overarching public interest was an order striking the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £37,500.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £10,000.

In relation to property transactions [involving client RB, clients SW and JL and clients DT and CT], the respondent had failed to register her clients’ interests within the appropriate time, thereby breaching principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

In relation to client RB and clients SW and JL, she had breached an undertaking she had given to her clients by failing to register transfers of property and charges within the appropriate time, thereby breaching principle 6 and failing to achieve outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

In relation to client RB, she had provided incomplete, misleading and incorrect information to her client regarding the delayed registration of the property, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

In relation to clients DT and CT, she had provided incomplete, misleading and incorrect information to her clients regarding the delayed registration of the property, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

There was no evidence of ill-motive. The misconduct had not been planned. The respondent had made an initial error which had then been compounded. The respondent was overworked and had not checked as she should have done.

It was fortunate that in the present case there had been no loss to clients, but the potential for loss and serious complications was significant.

The respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it had continued over a period of time, albeit triggered by one mistake. It was not a one-off as it had occurred on three separate transactions. The misconduct was mitigated by the respondent’s admissions.

The seriousness of the misconduct was such that the appropriate sanction was a fine of £10,000. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,500.

On 18 January 2023, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Lawrenson Solicitors, based at 77 Provence Drive, Bearwood, Dorset BH11 9FE. The sole practitioner of the firm was Leslie Lawrenson (deceased). The intervention was effected on 20 January.

The ground of intervention in relation to Lawrenson Solicitors was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of the firm (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

No agent was appointed.