Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £5,000. 

The respondent had, in relation to investigations undertaken by the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA between approximately January 2021 to February 2024, failed to: (i) adequately cooperate with the LeO or respond promptly to its enquiries; (ii) adequately cooperate with the SRA or respond promptly to its enquiries; (iii) comply with the requirements of a notice issued by the LeO pursuant to section 147 of the Legal Services Act 2007 within the time specified or in a timely manner. The respondent had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

From July 2022 to June 2023, the respondent had failed to discharge an undertaking provided by him within a reasonable time, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraph 1.3 of the code.

It had also been alleged that the respondent had breached principle 5, but he had denied that his conduct had shown a lack of integrity. His defence to that allegation was that he had suffered a serious health event, which had had an immediate and consequential impact on his cognitive abilities and capacity to manage his professional responsibilities effectively during the relevant period. 

In some circumstances, absent any credible explanation, a failure or protracted delay in responding to the regulator and the LeO and delay in fulfilling an undertaking could amount to a lack of integrity. However, in the respondent’s case the SDT accepted that the medical issues represented an explanation rather than an excuse, particularly the ongoing nature of the issues and the impact they had had on aspects of the respondent’s professional and personal life. The SDT had therefore found that the high threshold for lack of integrity had not been found proved. 

The respondent had advanced mitigation, accepted by the SDT, regarding an unblemished career over the preceding three decades, and steps taken to stabilise his health, reorganise professional affairs and ensure compliance. The respondent had fully co-operated with the SRA investigation and SDT proceedings, making early admissions. No client money had been at risk, there had been no dishonesty, and  no concealment.

A fine at level 1 of the indicative fine band represented the most appropriate and proportionate sanction, with the fine set at the top end to mark the seriousness of the matter regarding the undertaking. 

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

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Tyler Hoffman Ltd, on or around 15 July 2022 the respondent had misappropriated, or caused or allowed to be misappropriated, monies paid in settlement of client OB’s personal injury claim, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 5.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2019. 

Between 4 March 2019 and 31 October 2022, the respondent had created, or caused or allowed to be created, falsified documents on client OB’s client file, including but not limited to an expert report, invoices and correspondence, thereby acting in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, principles 2, 4, and 5 of the 2019 Principles and rule 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

On 30 May 2023 and 15 November 2023, the respondent had made false statements to the SRA investigating matters in relation to his associations with Core Rehab Ltd, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles and rule 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

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

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent had admitted the allegations, including allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity. While the SDT had noted his earnest apology and his full explanation for his conduct, it found that he had embarked on a course of calculated and outright dishonest behaviour.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the admission of dishonesty and the absence of exceptional circumstances, there was no alternative but to strike the respondent’s name from the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.