Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2000) and the second respondent (a limited company and recognised body) should each pay a fine of £5,000. 

While in practice as a consultant solicitor at the second respondent, the first respondent had, in respect of one or more of certain client matters, caused or allowed the firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility and had failed to return client money promptly, thereby breaching rules 14.3 and 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; rules 2.5 and 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

In respect of one or more of the client matters referred to above, the second respondent had allowed or failed to prevent its client account from being used to provide a banking facility and had failed to ensure that client money was returned promptly, thereby breaching rules 14.3 and 14.5 of the 2011 accounts rules; principles 6 and/or 8 of the 2011 principles; rules 2.5 and 3.3 of the 2019 accounts rules; and principle 2 of the 2019 principles. 

In respect of five files, the second respondent had failed to have in place client and matter risk assessments to record its assessment of the level of risk arising in any particular case, as required by regulations 28(12) and 28(13) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information of the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs), thereby failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; breaching principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms; and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

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

Although no actual harm had been caused by the first respondent’s conduct, non-compliance with the accounts rules and anti-money laundering regulations carried a potential risk of harm. The first respondent’s culpability was low. 

He had cooperated fully with the applicant and had admitted the relevant misconduct, such that the need for a contested hearing had been avoided. His conduct met the threshold for the lowest level of seriousness required to justify a fine. A fine of £5,000 was deemed proportionate given the circumstances. 

In allowing the transfer of money from the firm’s client account to a third party, the second respondent had created a potential risk that it could have facilitated money laundering fraud or insolvency, despite there being no evidence that this had been the case. 

The second respondent had also failed in its obligation to document relevant client risk assessments in relevant matters between 2017 and 2019, but it had been assessed to be a low-risk entity in money laundering terms. The culpability of the second respondent was low, and it had cooperated fully with the investigations and proceedings. 

Its conduct also met the threshold for the lowest level of seriousness required to justify a fine. A fine of £5,000 was proportionate given the circumstances.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,500; the second respondent, £3,000. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months from 4 April 2025.  

While in practice as a Solicitor at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (UK) LLP, the respondent had, at a social gathering, acted towards person A who was a paralegal from a different team at the firm in a manner which was unwanted, inappropriate and sexually motivated, namely the non-consensual touching of her bottom, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. 

The respondent and person B, a married associate lawyer from another team, had shared a taxi journey following a social gathering during which he had touched her breast under her clothing on three successive occasions. The touching was unwanted, inappropriate, and sexually motivated, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. 

The respondent’s conduct on both occasions had been sexually motivated. His actions were spontaneous and had occurred during, or following, the consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol. 

His conduct had had a significant impact on persons A and B. Person A had revealed that, as a direct result of the events, she had sought assistance from a specialist psychologist. Person B had highlighted how the negative effect of the respondent’s conduct had affected both her marital and work relationships.

The aggravating feature of the misconduct was its sexual nature, which had involved separate complaints from two victims.

The respondent was a relatively young solicitor who, at the time, worked in an environment characterised by a ‘work hard, play hard’ culture where long working hours were followed by regular heavy drinking during social gatherings among colleagues.

Additionally, the events underpinning the allegations had occurred shortly after the national lockdown, a period marked by social and psychological adjustments.

Despite the mitigating factors advanced on behalf of the respondent, the proved matters of non-consensual touching had adversely affected the reputation of the profession. The appropriate sanction was a fixed term of suspension for 12 months.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £95,390.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £5,500. 

While in practice as a solicitor with Parfitt Cresswell, from around 10 March 2021 to around 25 February 2022, the respondent had failed to take any action to register her client’s lasting power of attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian, thereby breaching principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

Between 8 February 2022 and 25 February 2022, the respondent had changed the terms of her client’s lasting power of attorney without her client’s consent, instructions or knowledge and sent it to the Office of the Public Guardian to be registered, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and paragraph 3.1 of the code. 

Between 8 February 2022 and 25 February 2022, the respondent had changed the date on her client’s cheque, without her client’s consent, instructions or knowledge and sent it to the Office of the Public Guardian, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. 

The motivation for the conduct was a desire to progress work to completion before the respondent left the firm. The fairest and most proportional sanction, even when factoring in evidence relating to the respondent’s medical evidence and character evidence attesting to her personal and professional qualities was a fine within the level 3 fine band.

Although there was no actual harm caused by the respondent’s conduct, there was a risk that harm could have been caused. Person A was elderly, and the tribunal noted the potential effect that a delay in the registration of the OPG could have caused for the client.

The SDT had taken particular note of the fact that the conduct comprised a single episode of events against the background of an unblemished career as a solicitor. The respondent had made immediate, full and frank admissions to the relevant allegations when notified of them. 

In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the fine imposed to be reduced from £11,000 to £5,500.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £11,750.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months from 8 April 2025.  

Between January 2021 and November 2023, the respondent, while in practice as a partner at Deals and Disputes Solicitors LLP, had submitted proceedings and applications which had been found to be totally without merit and an abuse of process; he had been made subject to two limited civil restraint orders and a general civil restraint order; and had behaved in a manner which had caused the court to express concern about his conduct. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and paragraphs 2.4 and 2.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent had engaged in sustained improper litigation conduct during proceedings arising from a family dispute. His approach, marked by procedural attrition and repeated unmeritorious applications, had represented a serious departure from the standards expected of the profession, had breached the obligations of the overriding objective, and his conduct had lacked integrity. 

The litigation had occurred during a period of exceptional pressure on the courts arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, marked by disruption to listings, backlogs and reduced judicial capacity. The seriousness of the misconduct had thereby been amplified, and the respondent’s culpability was high. 

The respondent had ultimately ceased to contest the majority of the allegations against him, and had made admissions shortly before the hearing. While it was accepted that those late admissions had demonstrated some movement in the respondent’s position, any insight had been limited in nature and had not materially mitigated the seriousness of the misconduct. 

In all the circumstances, a suspension of 12 months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,630.

On 18 August 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Umar Vachhiat and his firm Abbott Legal Limited (trading as Abbott & Company, Abbott and Company Solicitors and XYZ Law), Unit 5, High Street, Worsley, Manchester M28 3JH. 

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Vachhiat were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Vachhiat’s part in connection with his practice at the firm (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• Vachhiat had failed to comply with the SRA Principles, the SRA Accounts Rules (2019), the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the act). 

The grounds for intervention into Abbott Legal Limited were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Vachhiat as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).
• Vachhiat, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Principles, the SRA Accounts Rules (2019), the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, which are applicable to him as a manager of the firm and the firm itself, by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of that act).

Vachhiat’s practising certificate was suspended by reason of the intervention.

John Owen, of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0387; email: abbotts@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.

On 4 August 2025, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Jacobs & Co Solicitors, formerly at 451 Barking Road, London E6 2JX. 

The intervention was effected on 6 August 2025.

The ground for intervention into Jacobs & Co Solicitors (the firm) was:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of the firm is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as a manager or employee (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; tel: 01202 786 341) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.