Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent be suspended for six months from 25 April 2025, after which he would be subject to a restriction order for three years, during which he might not hold COLP, COFA, manager or owner roles.

While in practice as a solicitor at QC Law Ltd/Queens Court Law, between 12 July 2022 and 6 October 2022, the respondent had acted for client B in relation to a financial dispute against an existing client (client A) of the firm, thereby acting in circumstances which gave rise to a conflict of interest or a significant risk of such a conflict of interest. By doing so, he had breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 6.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLS 2019. He had acted recklessly.

Between 12 July 2022 and 27 October 2022, in his capacity as COLP at the firm, the respondent had failed to ensure the firm’s compliance with the SRA’s regulatory arrangements by recklessly acting in circumstances which had given rise to a conflict of interest or a significant risk of such a conflict of interest, and by failing to report that conduct to the SRA, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5, and paragraph 9.1 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

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

The respondent had admitted a lack of integrity. There could be no doubt that his culpability was high and that his actions had had the potential to directly harm the reputation of the legal profession. While his mitigation was noted, he had been reckless in not satisfying himself that all was in order.

Matters had been exacerbated by the fact that he was the firm’s COLP and COFA throughout. His error had been spotted by his paralegal and brought to his attention, but he had failed to act upon that information. His failure to self-report spoke volumes as to his cavalier attitude to the rules of professional conduct, though it was to be noted that his admissions now demonstrated an element of insight and contrition.

In all the circumstances, the proposed sanction was reasonable and proportionate to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £17,773. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £50,000.

While working as a solicitor at Osborne Clarke LLP, the respondent had sent an email to N that had improperly attempted to restrict N’s right to publish that email or discuss its contents, thereby breaching paragraphs 1.2, 1.4 and 2.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

In July 2022, there had been media coverage in relation to the tax affairs of Z, the then chancellor of the exchequer and a candidate in the Conservative party leadership campaign, who was a client of the respondent.

N, a former tax solicitor and partner at Clifford Chance, ran Tax Policy Associates. N had published an article on his Tax Policy Associates website, which commented on Z’s tax affairs and various reports from other media outlets. The article was headed: ‘Did [Z] use an offshore trust to avoid almost £4m of capital gains tax?’ He later posted on social media that Z had lied about this.

Later that day, the respondent sent N an email marked ‘Confidential & Without Prejudice’ asking him to retract the accusation of dishonesty. N published the email and then wrote to the SRA stating that while he ‘did not wish to make a complaint about [the firm] or the individual solicitors involved in the correspondence…’, he wanted to alert the SRA to the practice of attaching labels such as ‘without prejudice’ and ‘confidential’ to correspondence and to ‘… threaten (unspecified) consequences if it is published or disclosed to third parties…’.

The respondent had been motivated by the desire to prevent publication of the email. He had, on his own case, given careful thought to the wording of the email. That consideration related solely to the aim of preventing publication and did not include a consideration of what was permissible.

As had been accepted by the respondent, his conduct had caused harm to N and to the reputation of the profession. He had taken unfair advantage of his position of experience and knowledge and had attempted to mislead N. The misconduct was of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career.

The misconduct was such that a financial penalty was appropriate. A fine in the sum of £50,000 was appropriate in that it was proportionate to the wrongdoing.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £260,000.

Walker & Co

On 11 July 2025, an Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Daniel Charles Walker, including but not limited to his practice at Walker & Co, formerly based at 5 Goodwood House, Park Court, Lawrie Park Road, London SE26 6EQ. The firm was previously based at 78 Beckenham Road, Beckenham, London BR3 4RH before it moved to the address above. The intervention was effected on 15 July 2025.

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

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202786341) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.