![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)
Samantha Anne Lee and Henry Charles Adrian Syms
Application 12500-2023
Hearing 28 September 2023
Reasons 18 October 2023
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the first respondent, admitted in 1995, should be struck off the roll.
While in practice as a director of Lee Syms Ltd the first respondent had, upon receiving a statutory monthly payment (SMP) from the Legal Aid Agency on settled cases, failed to ensure that unpaid professional disbursements were paid, or the equivalent sum transferred to client account within 28 days and had instead allowed the monies to be used for the running of the firm, thereby breaching rules 6.1 and 19.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, rule 8.5(e) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011, and principles 2, 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted recklessly.
She had failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules as identified in qualified accountant’s reports, thereby breaching rules 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 of the Accounts Rules, rule 8.5(e) of the Authorisation Rules, and principles 8 and 10.
Upon receiving an SMP from the Legal Aid Agency on settled cases, she had failed to ensure that unpaid professional disbursements were paid and had instead allowed the monies received to be used for the running of the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. She had acted recklessly.
The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the first respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome.
The first respondent had caused significant harm to both the reputation of the profession and to the third-party suppliers. At the date of the firm’s administration the third-party suppliers had been owed over £647,000.
The first respondent’s conduct had been reckless in the extreme. It had continued over a five-year period and had led to shortages on the client account. The conduct was aggravated by her admitted recklessness.
In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved the improper use of a significant amount of client money, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the first respondent off the roll.
The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,583.
The SDT ordered that the second respondent, admitted in 1996, should be struck off the roll.
While in practice as a director of Lee Syms Ltd the second respondent had, upon receiving a statutory monthly payment (SMP) from the Legal Aid Agency on settled cases, failed to ensure that unpaid professional disbursements were paid, or the equivalent sum transferred to client account within 28 days and had instead allowed the monies to be used for the running of the firm, thereby breaching rules 6.1 and 19.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, rule 8.5(e) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011, and principles 2, 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted recklessly.
He had failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules as identified in qualified accountant’s reports, thereby breaching rules 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 of the Accounts Rules, rule 8.5(e) of the Authorisation Rules, and principles 8 and 10.
Upon receiving an SMP from the Legal Aid Agency on settled cases, he had failed to ensure that unpaid professional disbursements were paid and had instead allowed the monies received to be used for the running of the firm, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. He had acted recklessly.
The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the second respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome.
The second respondent had caused significant harm to both the reputation of the profession and to the third-party suppliers. At the date of the firm’s administration the third-party suppliers had been owed over £647,000.
The second respondent’s conduct had been reckless in the extreme. It had continued over a five-year period and had led to shortages on the client account. The conduct was aggravated by his admitted recklessness.
In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved the improper use of a significant amount of client money, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the second respondent off the roll.
The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,583.
