Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £40,000.  

While in practice as a solicitor at Kenneth Jones Legal Ltd between 20 August 2018 and 8 November 2018, the respondent had acted for clients A and B in respect of the sale of a residential property but had failed to do, or ensure that the firm did, any, or all of the following: (i) undertake adequate enquiries in relation to the transaction; (ii) adequately advise the clients as to the risks and consequences of the sale; and (iii) obtain client B’s consent for client A to give instructions on their behalf. He had thereby failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and had breached principles 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted recklessly. 

The respondent, who was the senior partner of the firm, had assigned the transaction to P, a junior solicitor, and had acted as supervising partner. 

The respondent was not motivated to commit misconduct. His misconduct had arisen out of his failings. The clients were vulnerable and had trusted the respondent and his firm to provide them with adequate advice or to ensure that his staff had provided that advice.

While he was not the fee-earner of the firm, the respondent had held compliance roles and had expressed concern in relation to coercion, but had taken no further action in that regard. He had given no guidance as to what should be done to allay those concerns. He had accepted that his conduct as a supervisor had fallen short. Given his roles and experience, the respondent was the person who was primarily responsible for the matter. He was an experienced conveyancing solicitor who had abrogated his responsibility for the matter to a junior solicitor, notwithstanding the concern he had expressed.

He had caused significant harm to his clients who had suffered a significant financial loss, the property having been sold for approximately 20% of its value. He had also caused harm to the reputation of the profession. 

The misconduct had continued over a period of time. The respondent had sought to blame P, but as the managing partner, COLP and COFA of the firm, the respondent bore primary responsibility for the failures that had occurred. 

In mitigation, the SDT found that the respondent had admitted the misconduct at an early stage. He had also implemented new processes at the firm to ensure that such misconduct could not occur again.

A financial penalty reflected the seriousness of the misconduct. A fine of £40,000 was appropriate. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £28,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for nine months from 16 April 2025. 

While in practice as a solicitor sole practitioner at YJS Legal, 18 Golders Green Road, London NW11 8LL, the respondent had, from at least 18 December 2020 to 31 January 2023, failed to maintain accurate, contemporaneous and chronological records in the books of accounts, and in doing so had failed to show that the firm held sufficient funds in its client bank account to match its liabilities to clients, thereby breaching rule 8.1 and rule 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules. 

On or around 20 November 2022, in relation to the transfer of a property from his client, A, to another of his clients, Z, the respondent had failed to conduct a proper assessment of A’s capacity to provide instructions and had thereby breached principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

From at least 18 November 2022 and throughout the period of the retainer (to at least 5 December 2022), the respondent had acted for and had been instructed by both A and Z, thereby acting where there was a conflict, or a significant risk of a conflict of interest arising between the interests of the two clients, thereby breaching principles 2 and 7 and paragraph 6.2 of the code.

From at least 18 November 2022 and throughout the period of the retainer (to at least 5 December 2022), the respondent had failed to consider A’s right to remain in the property following completion of the property transaction in his best interests, thereby breaching principles 2 and 7 and paragraph 3.4 of the code.

During the transaction, between 16 November 2021 and 5 December 2022, the respondent had charged A a disproportionate and unjustified fee, thereby breaching principles 2, 5 and 7, and paragraph 1.2 of the code.

On 16 November 2021, the respondent had allowed client money to be transferred into his personal bank account and had subsequently failed to ensure that it had been paid promptly into a client account, thereby breaching rules 2.3 and 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

The respondent’s culpability was high. His misconduct had created a serious risk of harm. The transaction had exposed A, a vulnerable and elderly individual, to the potential loss of his home. The conflict of interest was real and immediate, and the respondent’s failure to recognise it represented a material dereliction of duty. That omission had placed the client at significant risk and undermined public trust in the profession’s duty to protect vulnerable individuals. 

The key aggravating features of the misconduct were the deliberate overcharging and taking advantage of A’s vulnerability. 

Having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence, a fixed-term suspension of nine months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £21,130.