Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for nine months from 22 January 2026. Upon the expiry of the suspension the respondent was made subject to the following conditions imposed by the SDT: that she might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or as a freelance solicitor; 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) work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the SRA, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions. 

While in practice as a solicitor between 18 January 2020 and 1 September 2023, the respondent had practised as a sole practitioner without authorisation, thereby breaching regulation 10.1 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations; paragraphs 5.4 and 7.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019; and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

Between 18 January 2020 and 1 September 2023, she had held client monies when she was not working in an authorised body, thereby breaching rule 4.3 of the code and principles 2 and 5. 

Between June 2016 and 1 September 2023, she had failed to maintain proper accounting records in that she had failed to (i) carry out reconciliations every five weeks; and (ii) complete accountant’s reports as required, thereby acting in breach of rules 32A.1 and 29.12 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011; principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; rules 8.3 and 12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; paragraph 4.2 of the Code for Solicitors; and principles 2, 5 and 7.

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

Her culpability was high. Clients had been placed at risk as a result of her misconduct. 

A suspension for nine months, along with practising conditions that would take effect after the period of suspension had concluded, represented an appropriate and proportionate sanction that was commensurate with the misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,140.

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

While in practice as a solicitor the respondent had, on 15 February 2020, (i) distributed an indecent photograph, namely one category B video, of a child, contrary to sections 1(1)(b) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and (ii) had in his possession three extreme pornographic images, which portrayed, in an explicit and realistic way, a person performing an act of intercourse with a live animal, namely a dog, which were grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real, contrary to sections 63(1), 7(d) and 67(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

On 25 July 2024, at the Crown Court at Bolton, the respondent received the following sentence: six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years; required to register with the police for seven years; subject to a sexual harm prevention order for seven years, the terms of that order to include the prohibition of contact with a child under 16 years of age via electronic means, and possessing or using any computer or storage device which is capable of storing digital images with[out] the consent of the police; required to attend rehabilitation activities up to maximum of 30 days; 180 hours unpaid work, to be carried out within 12 months from the date of the sentence.

The applicant relied on the respondent’s convictions on 8 May 2024 of the offences listed above as evidence that the respondent was guilty of each offence and relied upon the findings of fact upon which those convictions were based as proof of those facts. The respondent had admitted all the allegations.

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

Within the sphere of regulatory and disciplinary conduct, there could be no mitigation to minimise the harm caused. The respondent’s misconduct could only be viewed as extremely serious and no sanction less than a strike-off would be sufficient to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,680. 

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

On 8 December 2021, the respondent had misled Santander by informing it that completion was taking place on 15 December 2021 and by altering the date of completion on the Certificate of Title to 15 December 2021, in circumstances where completion had already taken place on 15 October 2021. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLS (the Code for Solicitors).

On 28 April 2023, he had provided inaccurate and misleading information on the firm’s professional indemnity insurance proposal form for 2023/4. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA 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 parties submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the SDT’s guidance note on sanctions. 

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, as the admitted misconduct was serious and of the highest level, and considering the dishonesty, deliberate misconduct and concealment of wrongdoing, that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. It had not found that there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction. Accordingly, the SDT approved the sanction proposed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,923.

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

While in practice as a self-employed advocate instructed by LPC Law, on 8 August 2023, the respondent had created an attendance note which he knew or ought to have known was misleading as it contained an inaccurate account of his attendance at a court hearing on 7 August 2023. In doing so, he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

In his correspondence, the respondent had stated that his intention had not been to mislead. The SDT did not accept that assertion. The firm had suffered reputational damage with a longstanding client as a result of the respondent’s actions. It had also waived the costs it had incurred for the hearing. The SDT noted that the underlying lay client had not suffered any financial loss as a result of the respondent’s conduct. 

His conduct was aggravated by his proven dishonesty, which was deliberate and calculated. While it was a single episode of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career, and the respondent had made full and frank admissions to the firm and during the investigation, those were mitigating circumstances but did not amount to exceptional circumstances in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category referred to in the case of Sharma.

In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £9,419.

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

While employed as a senior coroner for the west London coroner area, on 9 November 2021, the respondent had provided inaccurate or misleading information to the Chief Coroner’s Office (CCO) about the seriousness of allegations made against him by Nottinghamshire Police. 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.

He had deliberately sought to mislead the CCO as to the serious nature of the allegations that were under investigation by describing allegations of serious sexual assault as ‘touching up’.

The respondent was motivated by his desire to minimise and underplay the allegations, given their serious nature and his embarrassment. His actions had been spontaneous. The respondent was an extremely experienced solicitor and a member of the judiciary at a senior level who was fully aware of his obligations. 

The respondent had caused significant harm to the reputation of the profession. His conduct was aggravated by his proven dishonesty, and while spontaneous, it had been deliberate and calculated. He had made a conscious decision to underplay the seriousness of the allegations.

In mitigation, it was a single episode of brief duration. The respondent had self-reported the matter.

The respondent had submitted that striking him off the roll would be disproportionate. However, while it had been a one-off episode, it was an instance of dishonesty from a senior judicial officeholder. The nature and extent of his dishonesty, together with his high level of culpability, outweighed his personal difficulties and personal mitigation. 

Accordingly, there were no circumstances sufficient to bring him in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category referred to in the case of Sharma. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

On Tuesday 31 March, the SRA intervened into Eden Vale Solicitors, formerly at The Lansdowne Building, 2 Lansdowne Road, Croydon CR9 2ER. 

The ground for intervention 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). 

Hilda Amoo-Gottfried’s practising certificate has not been suspended by reason of the intervention.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786 341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.

On 7 April, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named sole practice of David John Goldsmith at the firm, based at Angel House, 7 High Street, Marlborough SN8 1AA. 

The grounds for intervention were:

• Goldsmith had failed to comply with the rules – paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the clients of Goldsmith – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended). 

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 9 April 2026.

Goldsmith’s current practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention.