Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2008) should be struck off the roll; and that the second respondent (admitted 1999) should pay a fine of £2,000.

The first respondent, while in practice as a partner and solicitor at Just & Brown Solicitors, had failed to ensure that client money received from the sale of Property B was paid into or held in a client account, thereby breaching rules 1.1 and 1.2 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h), 13.1 and 14.1 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had failed to co-operate with the SRA’s investigation between 13 December 2016 and 11 May 2017, in that he had (i) indicated to the SRA’s forensic investigation officer that he had not acted for Client A in any conveyancing transaction when he had so acted; (ii) following a delay, produced bank accounts of an office account which contained no transactions in respect of the sale of Property B, to seek to support his account that he had not acted for Client A; (iii) failed to disclose Account F in the name of ‘Just & Brown Solicitors Limited’, held under his name as the sole signatory, into which the money from the sale of Property B had been received and held and which was operating as his personal account alongside client transactions; and (iv) stated to the FIO that Account F was not his account when it was an account in his name, for which he was the sole signatory and which was being used by him for both personal and work-related client transactions, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7. He had acted dishonestly.

The second respondent, while in practice as a partner and solicitor at the firm, failed to comply with his obligations between January 2013 and August 2017 as the firm’s COFA, in that he had failed to ensure that the firm and the first respondent had complied with the Accounts Rules, contrary to rule 8.5 of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011, thereby breaching principle 10.

Additionally, the first respondent had failed to comply with an undertaking given to preserve a costs lien over a file in relation to costs of BGR Bloomer Solicitors, thereby breaching principle 6 and had failed to achieve outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

While in the course of acting in the sale of Property C the first respondent had failed within a reasonable time period to comply with an undertaking dated 27 October 2016 to discharge the mortgage against Property C on completion, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6, and failing to achieve outcome 11.2.  

He had made a number of inappropriate statements about D, counsel acting for the opposing party, E, and his conduct of his client’s case; he had sent email messages to D and E which were inappropriate, thereby breaching principle 6.

In view of the serious nature of the first respondent’s misconduct, in that it had involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike his name off the roll.

The second respondent’s misconduct had arisen as a result of his failure to exercise proper oversight in his compliance role. A financial penalty was appropriate. But for the first respondent, the second respondent would not have been brought to the SDT. A fine of £2,000 adequately reflected the seriousness of his misconduct.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £41,896. The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £400.

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

While in practice as an assistant solicitor at Red Kite Law Ltd, the respondent had made false representations by impersonating another person to obtain NHS prescriptions for her personal consumption and had thereby (i) failed to behave in a way that upheld public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons in breach of principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019; (ii) failed to act with honesty in breach of principle 4; and (iii) failed to act with integrity in breach of principle 5.

The SRA relied upon the respondent’s conviction for the offence of false representation, contrary to section 1(2) of the Fraud Act 2006, on 26 August 2021.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the admissions were properly made.

The respondent had been convicted of a serious offence which had involved falsely assuming the identity of a third party to obtain prescription medication for herself. The offence had involved dishonesty.

The respondent had accepted that the present case was not one where there were any exceptional circumstances such that striking-off would be a disproportionate sanction.

The SDT could not go behind the conviction and did not consider there were grounds to go behind or question the respondent’s agreement to the terms of the statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome. It found that the proposed sanction of striking the respondent from the roll was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the Sanctions Guidance. The protection of public confidence in the profession and the reputation of the profession required no lesser sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,038.

The SRA has intervened into the former above-named practice of David Bernard Gooch deceased and John Charles Anthony Blandford, Blandford Gooch & Co. The firm closed on 14 July 1986. Its former head office was at 104 South End, Croydon, CR0 1DQ.

The grounds of intervention were: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any of any trust of which Gooch or Blandford is or was a trustee - (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

No intervention agent has been appointed.