Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £10,000. While practising as a solicitor at Ewan & Co Solicitors LLP, the respondent had used, or allowed the use of, a client account in circumstances amounting to the provision of a banking facility and in doing so breached rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had failed either to disclose to the lender client that the balance of the purchase price for property A was not coming from the purchaser client, or failed to withdraw from the transaction, and in doing so had breached any or all of principles 4, 5 and 10, and failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. 

The SDT could not identify any particular motivation on the respondent’s part, as that appeared to be his normal way of working at the time.

The potential for harm which was reasonably foreseeable was to NatWest in that they had been deprived of the opportunity to make a fully informed decision as to lending. That in turn caused harm to the reputation of the profession.

The misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it was repeated and had taken place over a period of time. The respondent also had a previous finding of misconduct. Although that related to different matters, the common theme was the operation of the client account. No insight on the respondent’s part had been found.

The seriousness of the misconduct was such that the appropriate sanction was a financial penalty of £10,000, having regard to the specific warnings the respondent had received from the SRA and his previous appearance before the SDT.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £19,509.

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

While in practice as a solicitor and sole equity partner of Lyons Wilson Solicitors, the respondent, having received settlement monies from the defence in personal injury matters, had failed to pay outstanding professional disbursements, resulting in a shortfall of between £74,733.86 and £148,593.86, on the client account, thereby breaching rules 7.1 and 17(1)(b) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2, 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

He had failed to run the firm with effective systems and controls and in accordance with sound financial and risk management principles, resulting in unpaid liabilities of £233,191.64, which included monies owed for professional disbursements and business liabilities, which the firm had insufficient funds to settle, thereby breaching principles 6 and 8 of the 2011 Principles, and paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 of the Code of Conduct for Firms and principle 2 of the SRA Principles.

In his capacity as the firm’s COLP and COFA, he had failed to ensure, or take adequate steps to ensure, compliance with the firm’s regulatory obligations, thereby breaching rule 8.5 (c) and (e) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011, and paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

He had failed to co-operate with the SRA during the intervention into the firm, thereby breaching paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

The respondent’s conduct had been self-serving, financially motivated and intended to keep the firm operating, which was to his benefit as sole equity partner.

The public had been directly harmed given the unpaid liabilities owed to third parties which were ultimately instructed to settle personal injury claims. Significant and direct harm had been caused to the reputation of the profession by the respondent’s  persistent, planned and repeated misconduct.

An order striking the respondent from the roll was required to meet the overarching public interest.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £33,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor first with Chauhan Solicitors Limited or with Prime Law Solicitors Limited:

Between 28 July 2017 and 5 April 2018, the respondent had instructed and/or approved the issue and/or pursuit of a fabricated claim for damages against Javidan Ahmad in respect of a road traffic accident when he knew that the basis of the claim was not true, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

On or around 29 September 2017, the respondent had signed a witness statement containing a declaration of truth knowing that the statement was untrue in material respects, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 27 and 30 October 2017, the respondent had provided misleading information in respect of medical evidence provided by a medical expert, Q, in that on 27 October 2017 he had provided instructions to Q which were untrue in material respects; and on or around 30 October 2017, the respondent had signed a declaration confirming that he agreed with the contents of a medical report when he knew that the medical report was, in material respects, untrue, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

There were no exceptional circumstances present in the respondent’s case such that a lesser sanction than strike-off was warranted. The protection of the public and public confidence in the profession and the reputation of the profession required that the respondent be removed from the roll.

There was no order as to costs.

On 20 February 2023 a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named practice of Jude Fletcher and the firm, which was based at 30 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA. The first date of attendance was 22 February 2023.

The grounds of intervention were:

• To intervene into the practice of Jude Fletcher on the ground that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential) clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Jude Fletcher is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).
• To intervene into the firm on the ground that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients), of the firm and/or the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX; email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.