Decisions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1997) should be struck off the roll; that the second respondent (admitted 1981) should be suspended from practice for three months from 20 October 2022; and that the third respondent (admitted 2010) should pay a fine of £3,000.

While a director of County Solicitors Limited and its chief executive or while providing consultancy services to the firm, the first respondent had caused or allowed various improper transfers to be made from the firm’s client account, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and rule 20.1 of the Accounts Rules 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

The first respondent, and the second respondent, while a director of the firm and its COLP, had caused or allowed the firm, contrary to its clients’ instructions, (i) to receive approximately £2,333,838.00 into its client account from mortgage lenders and thereafter pay out those sums to a third party; (ii) to fail to inform its clients that those sums were being so paid out; (iii) to fail to maintain client ledgers in respect of those sums; (iv) to fail to maintain client files in respect of those matters, and (the first respondent only) to submit certificates of title to lender clients which had been signed by individuals who were not authorised to do so, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10. The first respondent only had acted dishonestly.

The first respondent, and the third respondent, while a director and COFA of the firm, had breached the Accounts Rules in that they had failed to complete client account reconciliations every five weeks in breach of rule 29.12 of the rules; had caused or permitted the firm’s suspense ledger to be used in breach of rule 7.1 of the rules; and caused or permitted the firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility involving approximately £2,333,838.00 in breach of rule 14.5 of the rules.

Having found that the first respondent had been dishonest, the SDT did not consider that any exceptional factors were present such that the normal penalty of strike-off was not appropriate.

The second respondent’s misconduct was very serious. His actions had lacked integrity. The misconduct involved instigating a scheme in which lender clients were misled, albeit not wilfully, and improper payments were made, and client files and ledgers not maintained. While the second respondent had neither acted dishonestly nor deliberately set out to mislead lender clients, that had been the result of the misconduct. The protection of the reputation of the profession required that a period of suspension from practice be imposed.

The third respondent had failed to discharge the gatekeeping role of COFA adequately. Her misconduct was moderately serious, and a fine of £7,500 was the appropriate sanction. She had put forward a signed statement of means, and a reduction of the fine payable to £3,000 was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs as follows: the first respondent £70,000; the second respondent £15,000; and the third respondent £3,000.

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

Between 30 March 2016 and 9 August 2018, the respondent had practised as a solicitor for clients when not authorised to do so, thereby breaching rule 1.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 and principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Between 30 March 2016 and 3 August 2018, he had made false and/or misleading statements when he knew or ought to have known those statements were false and/or misleading: (i) by an email dated 30 March and/or a letter dated 1 April 2016 to DWF Law LLP; (ii) by signing consent orders dated 20 and 24 June 2016 in the name of the firm on behalf of clients JB and GK which represented that the firm was acting on behalf of JB and GK, and (iii) by letters dated 11 May 2018 and by email of 3 August 2018 which stated that the firm was instructed on behalf of client JB, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6.

On or around 12 and 13 August 2018, the respondent had requested payment of fees to himself personally from client AF when the fees were payable to the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. The respondent had acted dishonestly.

No exceptional circumstances were present, and accordingly the necessary and appropriate sanction was strike-off from the roll. The SDT made no order as to costs.