Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £10,000. Having been admitted as a solicitor of the senior courts, the respondent had driven a motor vehicle dangerously, resulting in his conviction on indictment of one count of dangerous driving, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

While it was unlikely that the respondent had made a conscious decision to become intoxicated and to drive knowing that he was intoxicated, that initial error of judgement, which it was accepted was spontaneous as opposed to planned, was exacerbated by a number of consequent decisions to continue driving his vehicle and to attempt to leave the scene.

The respondent’s motivation represented an initial serious error of judgement, compounded by numerous subsequent decisions in respect of which he had direct control. He should have known better as a man of his age and professional experience. He was solely and highly culpable.

The underlying facts upon which the criminal conviction was predicated, in conjunction with a flagrant disregard of the standards and duties incumbent on him as a solicitor, had caused immense harm to the reputation of the profession. It was fortuitous that no physical harm had been caused to the public but emotional harm had undoubtedly been caused to those who had observed the events as they unfolded. Those observers included children in a vehicle with their father.

The overarching public interest, comprised of the need to protect the public from harm, protection of the reputation of the profession and maintenance of public confidence in the regulator, could be met by the imposition of a financial penalty. A fine of £20,000 was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose but, given the respondent’s limited means, it would be reduced by 50%. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.