Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,000, and should be subject to the following conditions imposed indefinitely by the SDT, namely that she might not: (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or (ii) be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration. 

While in practice as a solicitor, sole manager, COLP and COFA at Seth Law Limited, the respondent had, by failing to advise clients adequately or at all on their other options in relation to their mortgage mis-selling claim (besides instructing the firm), the respondent had breached principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 8.6 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

By not sending to the insurer, either at all or in a timely manner, adverse counsel opinion(s) on the merits of the cases of both client A and client B, the respondent had breached principles 2, 5 and 7 of the Principles, and paragraph 1.4 of the code for solicitors. The respondent had acted recklessly.

By failing to seek prior approval from insurers to issue claims, the respondent had put client/s’ after-the-event insurance policies/cover at risk, thereby breaching principles 2 and 7 of the Principles. The respondent had acted recklessly.

The case was one relating to conduct by the respondent as a sole practitioner which involved an admitted lack of integrity and reckless conduct in relation to over 500 cases where the firm had acted in relation to claims of mortgage mis-selling over a period of two years.

The respondent was an experienced solicitor who had either conducted or allowed business to be conducted in an area of practice where she had no experience or expertise. She had failed sufficiently to familiarise herself with the details and the resulting failings underlying the allegations against her were foreseeable.

The respondent had demonstrated genuine insight, had cooperated with the applicant’s investigation and had made appropriate admissions in the course of the subsequent proceedings. She had operated the firm for 12 years without regulatory concerns arising.

A financial penalty was appropriate, and having assessed the seriousness of the misconduct as moderate, the SDT considered that a fine within the Level 2 band was appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000, such order not to be enforced without leave, save that where a bankruptcy order was made against the respondent a claim might be submitted in the respondent’s bankruptcy estate without such permission being required.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for six months from 28 January 2025.

While in practice as a solicitor at Frame Smith & Co, between July 2020 and June 2021, the respondent had held client money in his personal bank account, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, paragraph 4.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and rule 2.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules (SAR).

In relation to the client monies which were the subject of the above allegation, he had failed to return the balance of the monies to the client after there was no longer any proper reason for him to hold those funds, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and rule 2.5 of the SAR.

Between November 2018 and September 2020, he had acted on behalf of Client B and Client A in criminal proceedings in circumstances where he was not authorised to do so, thereby breaching principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, rule 1.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011, principle 2 of the 2019 Principles and regulation 10.2(b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.

The respondent admitted all the allegations. The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that his admissions had been properly made.

The respondent’s culpability was total and the level of harm high. There was, plainly, damage to the reputation of the solicitors’ profession in legal work being conducted by an individual who was without all regulation and who was uninsured.

The public expected solicitors to practise only in a fully regulated environment. When that did not occur, it tarnished the reputation of all solicitors. The respondent did not appreciate that important point as in his view, his view of his client’s interests took precedence. The respondent’s absence of insight into those issues was concerning to the SDT.

It was clear that the respondent is a deeply caring individual, whose vocation was to try to help those who wished to leave sexual offending in their past. That was a very worthy vocation, but unfortunately, it was an impediment to his professional objectivity.

That would never change unless the respondent re-evaluated everything he did professionally, and in his vocation, to ensure that each was in appropriate balance with the other. It was obvious that the way in which the respondent had practised his profession as a solicitor had inevitably blurred the professional boundaries required between solicitor and client.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,000.