Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £2,500. The respondent had used his firm’s client account as a banking facility, by receiving and making payments totalling £195,000 on behalf of a client when there was no underlying legal transaction for receipt of the monies or the payments. He had thereby breached principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

There had been no overt motivation, rather there had been an absence of critical thought and analysis which should have been applied to the offending transactions.

While the respondent was fully culpable the SDT accepted that, in essence, his errors had been inadvertent.

His conduct did not represent a significant departure from the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor, and while the potential for harm to the public and damage to the reputation of the profession was high and entirely foreseeable, the actual harm had been limited in nature.

There had been no allegations of dishonesty or lack of integrity nor any evidence of any sort which indicated that the misconduct had involved the commission of a criminal offence. It was a single set of circumstances in a long and unblemished career.

The respondent’s willingness to take responsibility for his actions and his acceptance with hindsight of his failings demonstrated genuine insight.

With respect to all the factors in the case, a fine towards the lower end of Level 2 of the Indicative Fine Bands for conduct assessed as moderately serious would be a fair and proportionate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,655.

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

While in practice as a solicitor and partner of Marchant Harries, in a conveyancing transaction regarding Property 1, the respondent had (i) inappropriately caused or allowed A, a trainee solicitor, to amend the date on the mortgage deed and to send it to Companies House; (ii) inappropriately caused or allowed A to re-amend the date on the same mortgage deed and to send it to the Land Registry; and (iii) inappropriately caused or allowed A to respond to a query raised by the Land Registry stating that the certificate of registration related to the mortgage deed dated 2 January 2019 and/or that it was a true copy of the original, when that was not the case. In doing so, he had acted in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

In a conveyancing transaction regarding Property 2 the respondent had inappropriately submitted, or caused to be submitted, a false certified copy of a mortgage deed dated 24 July 2019 instead of the correct date of 24 June 2019 to the Registrar of Companies, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent’s motivation had been to conceal an error in relation to both properties. That had started as an instinctive reaction, but there had been an element of planning thereafter and there had been a series of actions to perpetuate the initial amendment.

The respondent’s level of culpability was high. He had been trying to effect a transaction that all parties wanted to happen. However, the way he had gone about it was dishonest and there was always considerable harm to the reputation of the profession when a solicitor acted dishonestly.

It was clear from Guidance Note on Sanction that low-level sanctions for dishonesty were not appropriate and that the usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,200.

In relation to allegations contained in a rule 14 statement dated 12 January 2022, the SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. It ordered that allegations contained in a rule 12 statement dated 19 March 2021 should be stayed and that the applicant should be granted liberty to restore.

Rule 14 statement

While in practice as sole principal of Highgate Hill Solicitors, the respondent had made statements and/or representations which were false and misleading in support of her application for professional indemnity insurance cover for HHS for the period 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. She had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had made statements and/or representations which were false and misleading in support of her application for professional indemnity insurance cover for HHS for the period 1 September 2021 to 31 August 2022, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. She had acted dishonestly.

The respondent was solely responsible for the misconduct which had been planned and repeated in 2020 and 2021. At the material times, she was a very senior solicitor, had run her own practice for a significant period of time and had held all managerial roles therein. She was highly culpable.

The impact of her misconduct was serious. It represented a grave departure from the complete probity, integrity and trustworthiness required of her by the public and the profession. The harm caused to both was significant, intended and eminently foreseeable.

There was a multitude of aggravating features to the misconduct in that it was dishonest, deliberate, calculated and repeated.

There were no mitigating features.

The seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct was at the highest level, such that the only appropriate sanction was an order striking the respondent’s name from the roll, and no exceptional circumstances had been found.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £124,830.