Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £5,500.

The respondent, while in practice as a solicitor employed by Burnett Barker Solicitors Ltd, had, in relation to the purchase of the Old Eagle Pub, failed to register his clients’ interests within the appropriate time, thereby breaching principles 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had failed to perform within an agreed timescale or within a reasonable amount of time undertakings he had provided to: (i) Together Commercial Finance Ltd and Priority Law on or about 31 January 2018 in respect of the registration of TCF Ltd’s security over a property on New Cross Road; and (ii) Barclays Bank on or around 31 May 2018 in respect of the registration of its security over the Old Eagle Pub. He had thereby breached principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

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

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.

The respondent was an experienced solicitor with direct control of the matters giving rise to his misconduct. He had failed to comply with undertakings given and thus had caused harm both to his clients, the firm, and to the reputation of the profession. He had failed to act in the best interests of his clients. He had cooperated fully with the applicant, and had made admissions at the earliest opportunity.

The tribunal assessed his conduct as more serious, such that it fell within the tribunal’s indicative fine band 3. The tribunal then considered whether there should be any reduction in any fine on account of Clement’s means.

The respondent’s financial position was such that there should be a reduction in any financial penalty imposed. Accordingly, the fine proposed by the parties in the sum of £5,500 was proportionate in all the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,350.

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

The respondent had caused or allowed a lasting power of attorney containing her client’s, the attorney’s, and her signature to be filed with the Office of the Public Guardian, indicating that her client (client A) and attorney had signed the LPA, and that she had acted as certificate provider, on 9 July 2021 when she knew or ought to have known that such an indication was misleading. She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

On 7 March 2022, when asked for her name when asking for confidential information regarding client A, she gave person W’s name when she knew, or ought to have known, that providing the name was misleading and thereby breached any or all of principles 2, 4 and 5 of the principles and paragraph 1.4 of the code for solicitors. The respondent admitted the allegations.

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

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.

The respondent had admitted that her conduct had been dishonest. She had instructed the parties not to date the LPA and had inserted dates for the signatures which she knew to be inaccurate. Further, she had called the hospital and provided false information in order to obtain confidential medical information.

Given her admissions, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.