Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for three months from 25 September 2025. 

Between January and April 2023, the respondent had failed to disclose material details relating to the firm’s business and financial management to a forensic investigation officer of the Solicitors Regulation Authority during the course of their investigation into the firm.

She had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, paragraphs 3.6 and 9.1 of the Code of Conduct for Firms and paragraphs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The respondent had admitted the allegation in full, including all associated breaches of the Principles, including lack of integrity, and the Code of Conduct.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment. The parties submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the SDT’s guidance note on sanctions. 

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 failed to disclose material information to the SRA during the course of a regulatory investigation. Solicitors were under a professional duty to act with integrity and to be open and cooperative with their regulator. It was not acceptable for a solicitor to withhold information from the SRA. Such conduct undermined trust in the profession and was a serious breach of professional obligations. 

The SDT concluded that the proposed sanction, suspension for the period of three months, was an appropriate and proportionate sanction given the circumstances and the respondent’s full admissions. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £12,842.

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

The respondent had, while in practice as a solicitor at Barlow Robbins LLP, a recognised body, and insofar as while in practice, as a solicitor at Judge Sykes Frixou, a recognised body, between 1 January 2010 and 30 August 2010 conspired to make untrue or misleading representations in connection with the purchase of Property 1, in breach of sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, including representations to Santander and others as to the true identity of the purchaser of Property 1, the identity of those who would be contributing to the purchase price, the source of the monies that comprised the deposit and the identity of those who would be making payments towards the mortgage, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, thereby breaching rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.06 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007. He had acted dishonestly.

Between 31 May 2010 and 30 October 2015, the respondent had converted property, namely money, which, as he knew or suspected, constituted or represented Mr James Alexander Green’s benefit from criminal conduct, contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, thereby breaching rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.06 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 (for conduct before 6 October 2011) and principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 (for conduct after 6 October 2011). He had acted dishonestly. 

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

Having found the respondent’s conduct to be dishonest, the SDT noted that, save in exceptional circumstances, such a finding would ordinarily result in an order striking the solicitor from the roll. The SDT was satisfied that the respondent’s case did not fall within the small residual category where a strike-off would be disproportionate. Accordingly, it determined that the appropriate sanction was to strike the respondent from the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,000.