Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)

Andrew Eastham

Application 12201-2021

Admitted 1980

Hearing 3 August 2021

Reasons 26 August 2021

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

The respondent had abused his position as the executor of client A’s estate by fraudulently misappropriating approximately £274,462.63 from the estate, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had pleaded guilty to the offence of fraud by abuse of position, contrary to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006; had been sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

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 SDT was entirely satisfied that no sanction other than a strike-off was appropriate to ensure the protection of the public and the profession. The respondent had pleaded guilty to a serious offence of fraud by abuse of position in the course of his work as a solicitor. The severity of his conduct was reflected in the term of imprisonment he had received at the Crown court.

The SDT had not identified any exceptional circumstances and it therefore approved the statement of agreed fact and outcome and made an order in those terms.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,355.

Andrew Jonathan Jacobs

Application 12186-2021

Admitted 1983

Hearing 29 July 2021

Reasons 19 August 2021

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,501.

He had failed to comply with an undertaking to hold a mortgage advance to the order of the lender’s solicitor, S LLP, thereby breaching principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

He had failed to notify the compliance officer for legal practice of the firm of his breach of that undertaking, thereby breaching principle 7 and failing to achieve outcome 10.4 of the code.

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 beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The misconduct consisted of three related incidents in a period of less than three weeks, when a close family member was in the final stages of a terminal illness.

The relative’s death had caused the respondent extreme emotional upset which had distracted him from his work with the result that he became confused and unable to focus. That had impacted on his ability to deal with a complex transaction.

The SDT accepted that the respondent’s actions had caused moderate harm, but they were not deliberate in the sense that they were a calculated breach of his undertaking but were rather in the nature of a mistake as to his obligations. His culpability was therefore moderate.

The SDT had significant sympathy for the respondent and the painful circumstances in which he had found himself at the time. He had quite properly cooperated with the regulator and had made early and frank admissions to the allegations.

The allegations were somewhat ‘stale’ and it was unclear why there had been such a substantial delay. A financial penalty was sufficient and appropriate, with the breaching of an undertaking on three separate occasions as being ‘more serious’, requiring a level 3 fine. In view of the delay and to reflect personal mitigation a fine at the lower end of the level 3 band was appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,249.