Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a consultant solicitor at Vingoe Family Law Limited, the respondent had, between June and August 2021, informed client A and others that relevant pension information was awaited from client A’s pension company when she had not requested the information, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

Following a court hearing on 28 July 2021, the respondent had not promptly informed her firm that a penal notice had been made against client A, and that client A had been ordered to pay costs of £250. She had thereby breached principle 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code. 

The respondent was directly responsible for her actions in misleading her client, the court and others as to the true position. Her motivation in misleading her client and the firm was to conceal her failure to have taken the appropriate action.

The respondent’s ongoing failure to be candid as to the true position regarding the missing pension information had been exacerbated by her misrepresenting that the fault for the delay and her failure to provide the information to the court lay elsewhere. Her misconduct arose from actions which were planned as opposed to spontaneous. Her culpability was high.

The imposition of a penal notice against client A, and the prospect of her imprisonment, allied to an adverse costs order, represented significant harm to client A, whose trust in the legal profession had been broken by the respondent’s actions. Moreover, the firm had been exposed to a potential negligence claim, and court resources had been wasted as a consequence of the respondent’s misrepresentations.

The main aggravating feature of the respondent’s conduct was the finding of dishonesty, and the SDT could not find any exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction other than a striking off. Therefore, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £33,845. 

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

On 20 September 2022, the respondent had sent correspondence to his client, client A, which he knew or should have known was misleading, as he had told her that he did not have medical notes relevant to her claim, when that was untrue, and he had not made any reasonable effort to correct that position at any time in 2022. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 1.4 and 6.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between 18 to 21 October 2022, the respondent had prepared and filed a witness statement on behalf of client A at the court, which he knew or should have known was misleading as it contained information about the availability of client A’s medical records that was untrue. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5, and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

On 31 December 2022, in response to a court order dated 30 August 2022, the respondent had provided information to the court and the defendants’ solicitor, which he knew or should have known was misleading by stating that relevant medical records could not be located when they were, in fact, available to him. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5, and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

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 accepted that he had failed to act with integrity and had acted dishonestly towards his client, other members of the profession and the court. 

Although the SDT had been unable to determine his motives, it was clear that this conduct had been sustained over a number of months and that it constituted serious misconduct. 

Striking the respondent off the roll was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to protect the public.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

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

While in practice as a partner at Alexander & Partners and acting as the firm’s compliance officer for finance and administration, the respondent had, from December 2012 to January 2023, misled client A and others as to the status of client A’s case, which had been struck out in December 2012 due to the respondent’s failure to comply with a court order.

The respondent had thereby failed to achieve outcomes 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 4.2 and 5.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 1.4, 2.5, 3.2, 6.4 and 7.11 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. His conduct prior to 25 November 2019 was dishonest.

The respondent had failed to obtain client B’s instructions to settle his clinical negligence claim in July 2017, and had misled client B in communication following the settlement. 

He had thereby failed to achieve outcomes 1.2, 1.5 and 4.2 of the 2011 code, and had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2011 Principles, principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the 2019 Principles, and paragraphs 1.4, 3.2, 6.4 and 7.11 of the Code for Solicitors. His conduct prior to 25 November 2019 was dishonest.

From around January 2019 to December 2022, the respondent had caused or allowed the firm to retain client monies when there was no proper reason to do so, thereby breaching rules 6.1 and 14.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and rules 1.1 and 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019. 

In January 2020, the respondent had caused or allowed the firm to provide a banking facility from the firm’s client account, thereby breaching rule 3.3 of the 2019 rules. 

In his capacity as the COFA at the firm, he had failed to obtain accountant’s reports as they fell due, thereby breaching rules 1.2(i), 6.1 and 32A.1 of the Accounts Rules 2011, and rules 1.1 and 12.1 of the Accounts Rules 2019. 

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 dishonesty over an extended period and misconduct that had caused serious harm to clients. The SDT had concluded that striking off was the only appropriate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for nine months from 20 August 2025, and should be subject to the following conditions on practice imposed by the SDT for an indefinite period to commence on 20 May 2026: (i) that he might not act as a manager or owner of an authorised body; (ii) that he might only act as a solicitor as an employee where the role had first been approved by the SRA; (iii) that he might not act as a COLP or COFA for any authorised body; (iv) that he might not hold or receive client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account or have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account; and (v) that he should immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of those conditions and the reason for their imposition.

While in practice as a sole principal at Duncan Ellis Solicitors, on 1 September 2023, the respondent had provided information to an insurer in a covering letter for professional indemnity insurance, which he knew or ought to have known was inaccurate. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019.

As a sole practitioner and COFA, the respondent had failed to ensure that the firm had complied with the SRA Accounts Rules during the period of 13 April 2021 to 12 February 2024 by breaching rules 6.1, 8.1 and 8.3 of the Accounts Rules, principles 2, 5 and 7, paragraph 4.2 of the Code for Solicitors, and paragraph 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019. 

The respondent had failed to supervise members of staff at the firm’s branch office adequately or at all, thereby breaching principles 3 and 5 and paragraph 3.5 of the Code for Solicitors. He had acted recklessly.

The respondent’s misconduct had caused direct and serious harm. His culpability was high. Given the seriousness of his misconduct, neither a fine nor a reprimand was appropriate. A period of suspension was warranted and there was a compelling need to impose appropriate restrictions on the respondent’s ability to practise thereafter.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £35,000.

On 20 November 2025, the SRA intervened into the former sole practice of Gordon Quance, practising as Gordon W Quance of 31 High Street, West Bromwich B70 6PJ.

The firm, Gordon W Quance, closed on 28 June 1991, and Mr Quance died on 11 April 2017. 

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

No intervention agent has been appointed. 

On 10 November 2025, an adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Ajaz Ali, including but not limited to his practice at Kenneth Jones Legal Limited, and into Kenneth Jones Legal Limited itself from premises based at Church View, The Avenue, Kidsgrove, Stoke-on-Trent ST7 1AE, and 5a Upper Street, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton WV6 8QF.

The intervention was effected on 13 November 2025.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Ajaz Ali were:

(i) There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Ali’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

(ii) Ali had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds for intervention into Kenneth Jones Legal Limited (the firm) were:

(i) There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ali, 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).

(ii) Ali as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and 2019, and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and 2019, which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to that act). 

(iii) 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 is or was a manager or employee of the firm, 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: 01202786341) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.