Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent (a registered foreign lawyer) should be suspended from the Register of Foreign Lawyers for 18 months from 9 November 2022.

Upon the expiry of that fixed term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed by the SDT: the respondent might not (i) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; (ii) hold client money other than with leave of the SRA; or be a signatory on any client account other than with leave of the SRA with liberty to apply to the SDT to vary the above conditions.

While working as a registered foreign lawyer and principal at MA Law Chambers the respondent had caused or allowed improper withdrawals from the firm’s client account, which had led to a minimum cash shortage of £94,500, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and rules 5.1 and 5.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

The respondent had failed to carry out client account reconciliations in accordance with the applicable rules, to keep accounting records for the firm properly written up to show dealings with client and office money, and to appropriately record all dealings with client money in accordance with the applicable rules, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles, rules 2.1 and 2.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, and rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

He had allowed or failed to prevent Mr HA (himself and/or through his associates) from exerting influence and control over the firm and/or its client account, in breach of principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, and paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

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

Notwithstanding the fact that the allegations of dishonesty had been withdrawn, the admitted misconduct was so serious that it called into question the respondent’s continued ability to practise in accordance with the SRA Rules, Principles and Code of Conduct.

The proposed sanction of suspension for 18 months and restrictions on his practice thereafter was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll, and it further ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Having been admitted as a solicitor of the senior courts the respondent had acted in contempt of court, in that he had: (i) breached an undertaking in an order dated 15 March 2019 to procure that the sum of $9.3m (or the sterling equivalent), and any interest thereon, be paid into court; (ii) breached an undertaking in the same order to procure repayment of the full outstanding balance under a loan facility, including any costs and charges associated with repayment; (iii) failed to comply with an undertaking recorded in the same order, and one recorded in an order dated 18 March 2019 to provide to the best of his ability details as to what had happened to monies drawn down under the loan facility since the date of their drawdown on 12 February 2019; (iv) failed to comply with an undertaking recorded in the order of 15 March 2019 and an order recorded in the order of 18 March 2019 to explain to the best of his ability how funds referred to as ‘the Surplus Funds’ had been dealt with since 6 December 2018.

He had breached, by reason of his contempt of court described above, his professional obligations under all or any of: outcomes 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 11.2 under the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; principles 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had acted for Discovery Land Company LLC in circumstances giving rise to an own-interest conflict and/or to a client conflict (or to a serious risk of either such conflict); thus breaching his professional obligations under all or any of: outcomes 3.4 and 3.5 under the 2011 code; principles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 2011 principles.

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.

Given the admitted dishonesty and the absence of exceptional circumstances, it was plain that no sanction less than an order striking the respondent from the roll was required to protect the public interest.