Decisions

The SDT ordered that as from 18 March 2021, except in accordance with Law Society permission: (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.

1. While employed as an assistant management accountant and undertaking work under the direction of solicitors as a person involved in a legal practice, the respondent had been guilty of conduct of such a nature that in the opinion of the SRA it would be undesirable for her to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor.

1.1 She had dishonestly misappropriated monies in the sum of approximately £400,000 from the office account of Clyde & Co LLP, such conduct amounting to fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had been convicted of one count of fraud by false representation at the Crown court (having pleaded guilty to the offence) and had been sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.

The respondent had admitted allegation 1.1. She had set out in correspondence with the SRA that she had no intention of opposing a section 43 order as she had no intention of working within the legal sector again. She had also requested that no financial penalty should be imposed by the SDT as a result of ongoing confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which included a freezing order on her assets and bank account. She explained that she would be left with no money or assets as a result of the confiscation proceedings.

In the light of the nature of the conviction, it would be undesirable for the respondent to be involved in a legal practice, and the section 43 order was therefore granted.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,200.

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

On 23 January 2019 the respondent had been convicted of dishonestly making a false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. The respondent had acted dishonestly.

Between 2014 and 2016, the respondent had committed an act/series of acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6. The respondent had acted dishonestly.

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

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 been convicted of very serious offences involving dishonesty which struck at the heart of what the public would expect of a solicitor. Serious harm had been caused to the relevant property owners by the respondent’s actions.

The present case was not one of that narrow category of cases in which there were exceptional circumstances present such to enable a lesser sanction, dishonesty having been found.

The proposed sanction of striking the respondent from the roll was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the Sanctions Guidance.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,150.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £8,000.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner of Maddersons Solicitors, the respondent had acted where there was a conflict or significant risk of a conflict by acting (or being the supervisor of the person acting) for Mr D in a property transfer and acting (or supervising the person acting) for Mrs G in the same property transfer.

She had failed to take adequate steps to ensure that independent advice was given to Mrs G and to Mr D prior to the transaction taking place, thereby breaching principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcomes 3.5 and 3.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

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

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.

There was no evidence of dishonesty or malicious intent on the part of the respondent. She had attempted, albeit ineffectively, to mitigate the risk inherent in the conflict of interests. She had engaged fully in the applicant’s investigation and in the tribunal proceedings.

There was no apparent financial benefit to or motive for the respondent’s misconduct, which appeared to the SDT to have been an isolated incident in respect of one transaction in an otherwise unblemished career.

In all the circumstances, the admitted misconduct was ‘more serious’. A level 3 financial penalty (which categorised the misconduct as ‘more serious’) was required to protect the public from future harm and to protect the reputation of the legal profession. The SDT therefore endorsed the proposed financial penalty.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,000.