Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a partner at Crosby & Woods, the respondent had attempted to mislead the SRA investigation into the trust of client A as follows: (i) he had made representations to the forensic investigation officer during the SRA investigation into the matter that he was not the fee-earner with handling of the trust and had provided documents to support that position; namely, five letters that he said had been sent to client A which were not genuine; and a file review document which was not a genuine document. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code for Solicitors.

While a manager/owner, COLP and COFA at the firm, he had caused or allowed the firm to withdraw monies from the client account for the firm’s costs without providing prior written notification to clients of the costs incurred, leading to a shortage totalling £39,660 on the client account of a number of matters. He had thereby breached rules 4.3, 5.1 and 6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Principles; and paragraphs 4.2, 8.6 and 8.7 of the code.

While a manager and owner of the firm, he had provided misleading information on the firm’s professional indemnity insurance proposal form dated 16 February 2021 to the proposed insurer, regarding the status of Mr R, who was stated to be working full-time at the firm, which was not the case. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5.

The respondent had been motivated by his desire to avoid regulatory sanction, which was the reason for his dishonesty about his role in acting for client A. Further, he had been motivated by financial gain. His actions were planned. He had fabricated documents to support his contentions. His culpability was very high. He had caused financial and emotional harm to his clients. The damage he had caused to the reputation of the profession was significant.

His misconduct was aggravated by the multiple findings of dishonesty, conduct which was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time.

In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £26,595.40.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000. While in practice as a solicitor at BNP Paribas, London branch, the respondent had, between 21 December 2020 and 30 September 2021, created and used inappropriate, unprofessional, and/or offensive nicknames for colleagues, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2019.

Between December 2020 and November 2021, he had used offensive and inappropriate language in the workplace in emails.

The respondent had admitted the allegations. The SDT had found them proved on the facts and evidence and considered that his admissions had been properly made.

The SDT had determined that the respondent was generally disgruntled with managerial changes occurring at the bank. His conduct was not spontaneous. He was wholly responsible for his misconduct, having direct control of the language he had used. He was an extremely experienced solicitor in a position of authority.

The respondent had caused harm to those who had become aware of the names he had used and had harmed the reputation of the profession, as had been admitted. It was accepted that he had found the changes to the working environment difficult, but he had failed to handle the situation with the standards expected of a solicitor of his experience and standing.

His conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of eight months. In mitigation, the SDT agreed that he had demonstrated insight into and remorse for his misconduct. He had cooperated fully both with the bank’s internal investigation and the proceedings before the SDT.  

A financial penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the misconduct. It was not so serious that there should be any interference with the respondent’s ability to practise. Taking all matters into account, a fine in the sum of £15,000 was proportionate to the admitted misconduct. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £8,500. While in practice as a solicitor/partner at Addleshaw Goddard LLP, the respondent had caused or allowed billed time worth up to £1,241,790.51 to be transferred to different unconnected client matters or to different matters in a client group and had thereby caused at least one client to be overcharged, breaching principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted recklessly.

The respondent had admitted the allegation in full.

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 facts were highly unusual, and the respondent’s conduct was an aberration, perhaps brought on by a combination of his character traits and the pressure he had been under at the time. There had been no personal gain and no client had lost out. There had been no repetition in the years following. His remorse was taken to be genuine and his full and frank admissions were noted.

The SDT had found the respondent’s culpability to be total and the level of harm to be high, given admissions to a lack of integrity and to recklessness. It had not been a minor breach but had been one which had impacted upon the firm’s billing processes and, potentially, its relationship with its clients.

The misconduct was too serious for no order or a reprimand. The fairest and most proportionate sanction, when considering the unique facts of the case, the evidence relating to the respondent’s character and his level of remorse and insight, was a fine set at the mid-point of the range in Level 3 of the Indicative Fine Bands, (conduct assessed as more serious). The SDT imposed a fine of £8,500 upon the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.