Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a solicitor and sole practitioner at Able Law, having received £132,000 into the firm’s client account between August and October 2020, the respondent had failed to account to the client, ET, in respect of the same, and had misused £67,538.65 of the monies for other purposes, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and rules 2.5, 5.1 and 5.3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019. 

On 25 January 2021, she had misrepresented to ET that she did not have authority to release the funds referred to above, when in fact she had been given authority to do so on 17 December 2020, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5. 

She had failed to replace a minimum cash shortage of £67,538.65 on the client account, thereby breaching principle 2 and rule 6.1.

She had failed to co-operate with the SRA’s investigation into her conduct, thereby breaching any or all of paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and paragraph 8.1 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

In so doing and given the two findings of dishonesty absent any exceptional circumstances, the SDT had determined that the only sanction which adequately served the overarching public interest was an order striking the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £27,577.90.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000. It further ordered that the respondent should be subject to the following conditions: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (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 COLP or COFA; (iv) hold client money apart from the disposal of funds held in the client account of his former practice; or (v) be a signatory on any client account except to deal with the funds held on the client account of his former practice, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at NC Brothers & Co, the respondent had caused or allowed the facilitation of private loans to clients from monies held on behalf of other clients, without the prior written authority of both clients, thereby breaching rule 27.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had caused or allowed inter-ledger transfers between clients in order to cover overdrawn client ledgers, thereby breaching rule 1.2(c) of the rules, and principles 6 and 10.

By accepting and holding funds in the client account for PD for the purpose of making investments on his behalf, he had allowed the use of the client account as a banking facility, thereby breaching rule 14.5 of the rules, and principle 6.

He had caused or allowed a client account shortage of £1,594.77 thereby breaching rule 1.2(a) of the rules, and principles 6 and 10.

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

The respondent was wholly responsible for what had occurred and it was clear that he had felt entitled to deal with client money as he had.

The misconduct fell within the indicative fine band assessed as more serious and a fine at the top of that band was a proportionate sanction.

The restrictions proposed were also necessary and appropriate. They were an important safeguard for the public and they constituted a key element in the SDT’s decision to approve the agreed outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000, and that she should be subject to conditions imposed indefinitely by the SDT, that she might not act as a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm; that subject to that condition she might act as a solicitor only as an employee where the role had first been approved by the SRA; that she might not act as a COLP or COFA for any authorised body, or head of legal practice or head of finance and administration for any authorised non-SRA firm, with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor at Rana & Co Solicitors, the respondent had facilitated the sale of Property A in circumstances where she was on notice that the owner of Property A (Client A) might lack the relevant mental capacity to make decisions about the sale of the property, without undertaking adequate enquiries as to Client A’s capacity, and had thereby breached principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

In respect of the sale of Property B, she had facilitated a transaction which bore the hallmarks of illegitimate attempts to circumvent third-party interests of that property, without undertaking adequate enquiries as to the legitimacy of the transaction and had thereby breached principle 6 and failed to achieve outcome 11.1. She had acted with manifest incompetence.

In respect of a loan secured against Property C, she had acted for both the borrower and the lender so as to give rise to a client conflict or a significant risk thereof, and had thereby breached principles 3, 4 and 6, and failed to achieve outcome 3.5.

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

Having regard to the seriousness of the admitted misconduct the SDT was satisfied that the sanction proposed by the parties was appropriate and proportionate to protect public confidence in the profession and to protect the public against the risk of further harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £23,650.