Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £17,500, and that he should be subject to conditions imposed by the SDT for a period of 18 months as of 13 February 2025 as follows: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or as a freelance solicitor; or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; or (ii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration. 

While practising as a solicitor, COLP and COFA of CC Bell & Son, the respondent had (a) between October 2021 and January 2023 in relation to a conveyancing transaction, failed to perform undertakings which he had given as the solicitor for the sellers in correspondence with the buyers’ solicitors, in breach of rule 1.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019 and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019; and (b) between September 2022 and February 2024, failed to co-operate with an investigation by the SRA in breach of rule 7.3 and 7.4 of the code and principle 2 of the Principles.

The respondent had not been motivated to commit misconduct, his actions arising out of his failure to comply with the undertakings given and to respond in a timely manner to both Crofts Solicitors and the SRA during the course of its investigation. 

The respondent was an extremely experienced solicitor. He had caused harm to the reputation of the profession and direct harm to Crofts clients who had been subjected to unnecessary delay and additional financial expense as a result of his inaction. His misconduct had been significantly aggravated by the previous findings against him. 

The aggravated misconduct was assessed as very serious, such that a fine of £17,500 was determined to be appropriate and proportionate. The serious and repeated nature of the respondent’s conduct was such that a restriction order was necessary so as to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm by the respondent. The SDT determined that in the circumstances, the respondent should be subject to restrictions on his practice. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,500.

On 12 May 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the practice of the above-named solicitor who passed away in October 2009. Mr Davey was previously a partner at Lloyd & Davey, at 1a High Street, Epsom KT19 8DA, which closed on 8 June 1987. 

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Davey was a trustee – paragraph 1(1)(m)

of Schedule 1, Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The intervention notice was served on 13 May 2025. The SRA will be making arrangements to uplift the practice files relating to this solicitor’s practice.