Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent be suspended from practice for 12 months from 10 October 2022. Upon the expiry of that term, he should be subject for an indefinite period of time to conditions imposed by the tribunal as follows: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or as a freelance solicitor; or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; (iv) hold client money; (v) be a signatory on any client account; (vi) work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with such approval not to be given until the respondent had demonstrated to the SRA satisfactory completion of courses or further training in the following areas: a) know your client; b) risks of fraud in conveyancing transactions; c) conflicts; d) accepting instructions from vulnerable clients; with liberty to apply to vary the above conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor at Ison Harrison Limited, SRA, the respondent had failed, in acting for client A in the transfer of property B, to undertake proper enquiries in relation to the transaction; to ascertain whether the transfer of the property was in the interests of client A; properly to advise client A as to the risks and consequences of the transfer; and to take steps to protect client A’s interests including any right he had to continue residing in the property; thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted recklessly.

He had acted on behalf of both client A and client C, the buyer and seller of property B, in circumstances giving rise to an actual or significant risk of a conflict of interest, thereby breaching principles 2, 3, 4 and 6 and failing to achieve outcome 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted recklessly.

While in practice as a solicitor at Lofthouse & Co, the respondent had signed a sale contract in relation to property F on behalf of Mr E when he was not instructed to do so, thereby breaching paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome.

It was plain to the SDT that the respondent had a complete blind spot with regard to the obligations to ‘know your client’, the risks of fraud in conveyancing transactions, management of conflicts of interest, and the obligations attendant upon accepting instructions from vulnerable clients.

The proposed sanction in the agreed outcome addressed those risks. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £12,000.