Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. Between 19 July 2007 and 2 January 2018, the respondent had failed to disclose to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets that he was the owner of Property A and Property B, which he was under a legal duty to disclose, in order to make a gain, namely social housing for himself and his family, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

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. 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. He admitted that he had dishonestly failed to disclose information about his ownership of properties in order to retain social housing to which he knew he was not entitled.

That had caused a loss of £124,680 to the local authority. The respondent had been convicted of two counts of fraud. Given the serious nature of his misconduct, including his convictions and admitted dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike him off the roll. No exceptional circumstances that would justify a sanction other than striking him off the roll had been found. Accordingly, the SDT approved the sanction proposed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,510.

The SDT ordered that each respondent should pay a fine of £7,500. It further ordered that each respondent should be subject to the following conditions for an indefinite period from 8 December 2021: that they might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or (ii) be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration, with liberty to apply to vary those conditions.

While in practice as solicitors and members of Maxwell Alves LLP, in relation to the ‘Cyprop litigation’, the respondents had failed to disclose to clients the firm’s fee-sharing agreements with Person A and Company A, thereby breaching principle 5 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 9.5 of the Code of Conduct 2011.

They had paid client monies to Person A and Company A on account of disbursements not yet incurred, which had therefore remained client money, thereby breaching principle 10 and rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

They had outsourced complex group litigation to an unauthorised entity, without adequate supervision or control and had reserved legal activities to an unauthorised body, without adequate supervision, thereby breaching principles 4, 5, 6 and 8, and failing to achieve outcomes 7.1 to 7.3, and 7.7 to 7.10 of the code.

They had enabled an unauthorised individual (Person A) and entity (Company A) to take sole conduct of the Cyprop litigation; had rendered themselves unable to supervise the Cyprop litigation; and in respect of client money had enabled Person A to exercise almost total control over funds held in the firm’s client account and had enabled Person A to levy fees and to hold those fees in a non-compliant account, thereby breaching principles 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, and failing to achieve outcomes 7.1 to 7.3, and 7.7 to 7.10 of the code.

At the point that the firm had ceased to exercise any practical control over the Cyprop litigation, the respondents had failed to give clients adequate advice or information about their future costs obligations; or their options with respect to moving to new firms, thereby breaching principle 5, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.12 and 1.13 of the code.

They had failed to keep accurate books of account, thereby breaching principles 8 and 10 and failing to achieve outcome 7.4.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondents 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 respondents’ admissions had been properly made.

Having determined that the proposed sanction was appropriate and proportionate, the application for matters to be resolved by way of the agreed outcome was granted.

The respondents were each ordered to pay costs of £9,012.