Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Curtis Law LLP between 1 December 2014 and 28 June 2016, the respondent had disclosed his personal finances in relation to financial settlement on divorce in both a Form E and a Form D81 document, when he knew or ought to have known that the disclosure provided was inaccurate and/or incomplete and therefore misleading or likely to mislead the respondent in those proceedings and/or the family court. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failed to achieve outcomes 5.1, 5.6 and 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 1 December 2014 and 28 June 2016, the respondent had caused or allowed monies to be paid into and out of the firm’s client account, other than in respect of an underlying transaction being undertaken by the firm or in respect of the delivery by him of regulated services, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles and rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

The respondent had been motivated by his desire to conceal assets from person B in circumstances where he did not consider monies held at the firm on his behalf to be a matrimonial asset. His actions in concealing those funds had been planned. 

The SDT had acknowledged the respondent’s previous good character and the level of insight he had shown as regards the errors he had made. It had also taken into account the positive references submitted on the respondent’s behalf. He had cooperated fully with the applicant. His conduct had been aggravated by his proven dishonesty. 

Given the serious nature of the allegations, in that they had involved dishonesty, the SDT had considered and rejected the lesser sanctions within its sentencing powers. The only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £23,655.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for one month from 1 August 2025. 

While in practice as a director and owner at Tyto Law Limited, as manager and COLP of the firm, between 24 June and 28 July 2021 the respondent had failed to ensure that the firm had complied with an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 that no recognised body should employ or remunerate M, an unadmitted person, except in accordance with the permission of the SRA. He had thereby breached paragraphs 2.1 and 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms; and principles 2 and (from 28 July 2021 only) 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

He had failed to provide accurate information to the SRA in an application form dated 28 July 2021, seeking its permission for the firm to employ M, thereby breaching paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; and principles 2 and 5 of the Principles. 

From 28 July 2021 until 24 September 2021, as manager and COLP of the firm, he had caused or permitted the firm to continue to employ or remunerate M in knowing contravention of an order under section 43 of the 1974 act, thereby breaching section 43(2)(1) of the 1974 act, paragraphs 2.1 and 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, paragraph 9 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms; and principles 2 and 5 of the Principles.

As manager and COLP of the firm, he had failed to ensure that the conditions imposed by the SRA on the approval of employment of M by the firm dated 24 September 2021 had been met, thereby breaching paragraphs 2.1, 2.3 and 9 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms; and principle 2 of the Principles.

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 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 SDT had determined that the seriousness of the misconduct was such that a short period of suspension was proportionate and appropriate. Accordingly, it was satisfied that the proposed sanction of suspension for the period of one month was proportionate and accurately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,800.

On 5 September 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named former sole practice of David Burcher, formerly practising at David Burcher & Co at Hartnolls, Eastington Road, Morchard Bishop, Crediton EX17 6RJ. The firm closed on 30 September 2019. The grounds of intervention were:

• Burcher had failed to comply with rules made by virtue of section 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) – paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the act.
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the former clients of Burcher – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The SRA will be making arrangements to take possession of practice documents and money relating to this firm.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.  

While in practice as a partner at Capsticks LLP and in the course of conducting housing proceedings on behalf of client A, between approximately November 2019 and May 2021: (i) the respondent had not taken appropriate action or notified client A in relation to (a) his failure to serve points of dispute in time; and (b) a default costs certificate being issued against it, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 7.11 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. 

From approximately April 2021, the respondent had failed to: (i) take appropriate action or keep client A appropriately updated in relation to steps being taken to seek recovery of costs and interest against it; or (ii) provide complete and accurate information to client A in relation to its liability to pay costs and interest, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the 2019 Principles, and paragraphs 1.4 and 7.11 of the code.

The respondent was a partner and held a senior role in the delivery of services for client A. It was unacceptable to lay the blame for the failings on the lack of sufficient time, both in respect of his initial failure to serve the points of dispute and his subsequent failure to take appropriate action and notify client A in relation to the issuance of the default costs certificate and its consequences. 

The respondent’s motivation was to avoid owning the errors made on the file, and to minimise the time needed to deal with the file and to resolve the problems that had arisen from his omissions. His original error on client A’s matter was unplanned and spontaneous, but his continued failure to remedy the situation when provided with multiple opportunities to do so represented deliberate conduct. His level of culpability was high.

When determining the level of harm caused by the respondent’s misconduct, it was noted that the firm had ultimately repaid to client A the amount that had accrued in interest. The respondent’s failure to communicate candidly with client A had harmed the reputation of the profession. 

A finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll. The SDT could not find any exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction, therefore the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to order that the respondent be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,836. 

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

The respondent, while in recognised sole practice at William Harris Solicitors had, on or around 13 December 2019, inaccurately confirmed to the SRA that the firm had a Firm Wide Risk Assessment (FWRA), in accordance with regulation 18 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs), when it did not, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 7.4(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between 2 January 2018 and 28 May 2024, he had failed to ensure that the firm had a FWRA which complied with the requirements of regulation 18 of the MLRs and/or policies, controls and procedures which complied with the requirements of regulation 19 of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breaching principle 2 of the Principles and paragraph 8.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019. 

Between 1 January 2022 and 30 September 2023, in respect of the 63 conveyancing clients of the firm, he had failed to ensure that the necessary scrutiny regarding the source of client funds was undertaken, in accordance with regulation 28(11)(a) of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principle 2; and paragraph 8.1 of the code for firms. 

Between 1 January 2022 and 30 September 2023, he had failed to ensure the firm had an adequate system in place by which it could apply customer due diligence measures to its clients, in accordance with regulation 28(2) of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraph 8.1 of the code for firms. 

Between 2 January 2018 and 28 May 2024, in respect of the 54 residual client balances for clients of the firm, and upon there being no proper reason for the firm to hold those funds, he had failed to ensure that such funds were returned to clients, thereby breaching rule 14.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, principles 4 and 6 of the 2011 Principles, rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, and principles 2 and 7 of the Principles. 

He had failed to ensure, within six months of the end of the applicable accounting period, that the firm had obtained an accountant’s report for any or all of the following accounting periods, during which the firm had held client money: (i) between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021; (ii) between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022; and (iii) between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023, thereby breaching rule 12.1(a) of the Accounts Rules; principle 2 of the Principles; and paragraph 9.2(a) of the code for firms.

The respondent had admitted each of the 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 respondent’s widespread and fundamental non-compliance with critical regulations represented systemic failures throughout the six years of his sole practice. 

Clients had suffered actual harm through being deprived of over £100,000 in residual balances for years. In all the circumstances, the SDT accepted that the proposed sanction was the only reasonable and proportionate sanction 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 £29,776.