Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000.

While in practice as a solicitor at Bannister Preston solicitors LLP, the respondent had, between 19 November 2008 and 22 December 2014, given incorrect advice to approximately 115 clients regarding ground rent provisions in leases of properties they had purchased, and had thereby acted in breach of rules 1.05 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; and of principles 5 and 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.

Some 115 clients had been detrimentally impacted by the erroneous advice given by the respondent. It had led to litigation and the attendant stress/expense which that entailed, and which would not have been necessary without the respondent’s misconduct. Claims had been made to insurers and to the Compensation Fund which had consequentially caused harm to the reputation of the profession.

The respondent was solely culpable. He had acted mistakenly as opposed to intentionally. There were aggravating features in that the mistake had been repeated over a protracted period, and further that the respondent knew or ought to have known that inattention to detail could result in a material breach of his professional obligations and duties.

He had made open and frank admissions to the firm, the applicant and the SDT; had cooperated with the firm’s investigation, the applicant’s investigation and the tribunal proceedings; and had demonstrated genuine insight and acceptance of accountability.

The SDT had assessed the admitted misconduct as ‘very serious’, which could be met with a level 3 fine. The proposed agreed fine of £15,000 fell into that category.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,350.

The SDT granted the applicant’s application for the variation of conditions on his practice imposed by it on 25 September 2012 to the effect that the applicant should not be a sole manager or sole owner of any authorised body; that he should not provide legal services as a freelance solicitor offering reserved and unreserved services on his own account under regulations 10.2(a) or 10.2(b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations; and that there should be liberty to apply in respect of the above.

On 25 May 2022, the authorisation officer of the SRA had made a decision to vary the conditions it had imposed on his practice, and the applicant had then applied to vary the conditions originally imposed by the SDT in September 2012 so that they aligned with those imposed by the SRA in May 2022.

The applicant had complied with the conditions imposed upon his practice and was clearly keen to progress within the profession. The SRA supported his application.

The SDT also bore in mind that in order to practise alone the applicant would have to apply successfully to it for removal of all conditions upon his practice.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £1,911.

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

The respondent had dishonestly made seven false representations to various companies and an individual in order to fraudulently procure goods in the total value of approximately £10,577 in breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The SRA relied on the respondent’s convictions for seven counts of the offence of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk, dated 28 August 2019 as evidence that he was guilty of those offences. The case was not the subject of an appeal.

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 serious offences involving dishonesty.

The SDT did not consider there were exceptional circumstances present such that a lesser sanction was warranted, nor was it contended by either party that any such exceptional circumstances existed.

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 £1,300.