Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,501. 

The respondent had, while in practice as a partner at Spencer Davies Solicitors and while acting in the administration of an estate for which he was co-executor: (i) on 28 November 2006 and 28 December 2006, caused or allowed two payments to be made from the estate, in the sums of £25,000 and £14,000 respectively, to him and his wife without the knowledge and/or consent of his co-executor and/or the other beneficiaries. He had thereby acted in breach of rules 1(a) and 1(d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990, and with a lack of integrity; (ii) the respondent had acted where there existed a conflict of interest or a significant risk of conflict of interest, thereby acting in breach of rule 16D of the 1990 rules.

The respondent admitted those allegations. 

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

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 respondent had admitted lack of integrity and there could be no doubt that his culpability for his conduct was high, and that his actions had had the potential to indirectly harm the reputation of the legal profession. However, it was accepted that all beneficiaries had ultimately received their full entitlements. 

The respondent had (latterly) made full and frank admissions, had fully cooperated with the SRA throughout its investigation, and had shown some insight. There had been no repetition in the 18 years which had elapsed since the misconduct. 

A fine of £7,501 was a reasonable and proportionate sanction to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession. 

This case served as a reminder to the profession to exercise great care and caution when acting in a legal capacity for family members. To do so created several risks, including potential conflicts of interest, and compromising professional judgment. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,210, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months from 5 February 2025.

While in practice as a solicitor at M-R Solicitors LLP, the respondent had failed to disclose to clients investing in proposed development projects a relevant connection to and interest in the businesses involved in the development projects and had thereby allowed the firm to represent clients in circumstances where he knew, or ought to have known, there was, or was a significant risk of, a conflict of interest, and had thereby breached principles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcomes 3.2 and 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. 

He had failed adequately to advise clients involved in the development projects (which were ‘off-plan’, buyer-led investment schemes) of the risks inherent in such investment schemes, and had failed to ensure clients fully understood those risks, and had thereby breached principles 4, 5 and 6 and failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the code. 

He had failed to ensure clients were informed about issues regarding planning permission prior to releasing client funds to Aronex Developments Limited and had thereby breached principle 4 and failed to achieve outcome 1.2 of the code. 

He had failed to provide any supervision/adequate supervision of a junior staff member representing clients in relation to the development projects and had thereby breached principles 4, 5 and 8 and failed to achieve outcomes 1.5 and 7.8 of the code. 

The respondent had been incentivised by a financial motivation. He had had direct control of and responsibility for the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct and his actions had been planned as opposed to spontaneous. His level of culpability was high. 

The respondent’s misconduct, which had included a lack of integrity, had impacted on the reputation of the profession particularly as he had acted while in a conflict of interest with his own clients, notwithstanding the mandatory prohibition on doing so. The level of harm arising from the respondent’s misconduct was assessed as moderate. The misconduct had continued over a period exceeding two years. 

The respondent had presented a new defence in the course of the hearing that was fundamentally flawed. He also demonstrated a lack of insight regarding his misconduct and the importance to the public and the reputation of the profession of upholding his regulatory obligations. That called into question the respondent’s continued ability to practise appropriately. A suspension from the roll was the appropriate penalty in the case. Public confidence in the legal profession demanded no lesser sanction. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £40,218.

On Thursday 15 May 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Martin Richard Marshall Daniel and his firm Daniel and Edwards of 44-46 Queen St, Ramsgate CT11 9EG.

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

Daniel’s practising certificate is not suspended by reason of the intervention.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202 786 341) has been appointed as intervention agent.