Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months, such period of suspension to be suspended for 12 months from 6 November 2025.   

The SDT further ordered that the respondent should be subject to the following conditions: that he might not: (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body, or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; (iv) hold client money; (v) be a signatory on any client account; or (vi) provide legal services as a freelance solicitor offering reserved or unreserved services on his own account, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor, sole manager, director, COLP and COFA at Queenscourt Law Ltd trading as (t/a) Hamilton Solicitors, the respondent had facilitated and/or failed to prevent the firm facilitating fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent, property transactions which had caused the firm to have a minimum client account shortage of £825,368, and a potential further client account shortage of up to £1,610,000, which had not been replaced as at 6 July 2023. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, paragraphs 5.2 and 9.2(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and rules 5.3 and 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

He had used, or allowed the use of, the firm’s client account as a banking facility by distributing, or permitting the distribution of, the proceeds of sale from property transactions to third parties, thereby breaching rule 3.3 of the accounts rules.

He had demonstrated a lack of control, supervision, governance and oversight of the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and paragraphs 2.1(a), 4.4 and 8.1 of the code for firms. He had been manifestly incompetent.

He had failed to cooperate with the SRA’s investigation adequately or at all, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the code. He had not acted with a lack of integrity. 

The finding of manifest incompetence related specifically to the respondent’s conduct in his roles as manager, COLP and COFA of the firm, and in his handling of conveyancing transactions. While serious, it had not arisen from conduct that had breached ethical standards. 

A suspension from practice for a fixed period, with appropriate restrictions, would be both a proportionate and appropriate sanction.

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

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for two years from 10 November 2025, and should for a further two years be subject to conditions imposed by the SDT as follows: (i) he might not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body; (ii) he might act as a solicitor only as an employee and only where the employment had first been approved by the SRA; (iii) he might not act as a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration for any authorised body; and (iv) he might not practise on his own account under regulation 10.2 (a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Blaser Mills LLP, the respondent had (i) amended the electronic copy of an internal handover note relating to the estate of A, by deleting the prompt to carry out CGT mitigation with the intention or effect of misleading others into believing that no prompt had been included in the original handover note; and (ii) he had sent an email which was misleading by failing to set out fully or accurately the circumstances that had given rise to a CGT liability to A’s estate.

He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

The respondent’s conduct was dishonest. 

The respondent had admitted the allegations and that his conduct had breached principles 2, 4 and 5, and that he had failed to comply with paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The SDT had found that the respondent’s admissions were unequivocal, supported by the evidence and properly made. It had therefore found the allegations proved in full to the requisite standard.

The respondent’s motive for sending the misleading email was to continue to conceal his mistake. There was no repeated pattern of conduct nor of dishonesty.

Inexperience as a qualified solicitor was an important part of the context. The respondent had only recently joined the firm and had inherited a heavy caseload. While conscientious, he had panicked at the realisation of having made a mistake and made a poor decision. He had cooperated fully not only with the firm, but also with the regulator as soon as the firm reported his dishonest conduct.

The misconduct was serious, but no direct harm had been caused to anyone. Its seriousness was aggravated by the respondent’s admitted dishonesty. Although the misconduct was serious and deliberate the case did, in all the circumstances, fall within the very narrow residual category recognised in the authorities. Taking into account the totality of the factors in the case, a lesser sanction than striking off was consistent with the maintenance of the reputation of the profession.

The SDT in making its decision recognised and emphasised that the exceptional circumstances were narrowly confined to the facts of the case and should not be read as creating a wider precedent for leniency.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,419.

On 4 February 2026, an adjudication panel resolved to intervene into PM Law Limited, PM Property Lawyers Limited, PM Law (Specialist Claims) Limited, Proddow Mackay Limited, Proddow Mackay Solicitors LLP, Proddow Mackay (Conveyancing) Limited, 3M Law Limited, Linkfield Claims Service Limited, Butterworths Solicitors LLP, Autonet Law LLP and WB Pennine Solicitors LLP.

They operated from the following premises: PM House, 250 Shepcote Lane, Sheffield S9 1TP (head office); Riversdale, 34 Market Street, Hoyland, Barnsley S74 9QR; 271-273 Middlewood Road, Sheffield S6 4HE; Unit 1 Meadowhall Retail Park, Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield S9 2EQ; Crown House, PO Box 259, Penistone, Sheffield S36 6HX; 859 Gleadless Road, Sheffield S12 2LG; 7-9 Austhorpe View, Leeds LS15 8NN; 1 Rose Avenue, Horsforth, Leeds LS18 4QE; 20 The Grove, Ilkley LS29 9EG; 29 Westgate, Baildon, Shipley BD17 5EH; 80-86 North Street, Keighley BD21 3AF; 3 Carlton Place, Halifax HX1 2SB; 16 Wade House Road, Shelf, Halifax HX3 7PB; 12 Bradford Road, Brighouse HD6 1RL; 213 Halifax Road, Huddersfield HD3 3RG; 9 Market Avenue, Huddersfield HD1 2BU; Suite 6, Queens Court, Regent Street, Barnsley S70 2EG; 6 Vernon Street, Derby DE1 1FR; 24 Lowther Street, Carlisle CA3 8DA; 6-8 Cornmarket, Penrith CA11 7DA; 100A Stricklandgate, Kendal LA9 4PU; Former Library, Richmond Hill Road, Hensingham, Whitehaven CA28 8SU; 1 Aquis House, 49-51 Blagrave Street, Reading RG1 1PL; Sands Court, Grove Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1LW.

The intervention was effected on 5 February 2026.

The ground for intervention into PM Law Limited, PM Property Lawyers Limited, PM Law (Specialist Claims) Limited, Proddow Mackay Limited, Proddow Mackay Solicitors LLP, Proddow Mackay (Conveyancing) Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘the recognised bodies’) was:

(i) It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which any of the recognised bodies 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 (as amended)).

The ground for intervention into 3M Law Limited, Linkfield Claims Service Limited, Butterworths Solicitors LLP, Autonet Law LLP and WB Pennine Solicitors LLP (hereafter referred to as ‘the licensed bodies’) was:

(i) It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which any of the licensed bodies is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as a manager or employee (paragraph 1(2)(f) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (email: PM@gordonsllp.com; tel: 0113 227 0368) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.