Decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,500. 

While practising as a solicitor at Carter Devile, the respondent had, in relation to property A, failed adequately to scrutinise the source of the funds supplied by third parties, thereby causing or contributing to the firm breaching regulation 28(11)(a) of the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations, and in doing so had breached principles 6, 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

In relation to property B, she had failed adequately to scrutinise the source of the funds supplied by third parties, thereby causing or contributing to the firm breaching regulation 28(11)(a) of the 2017 MLRs, and in doing so had breached principles 6, 7 and 8 and failed to achieve outcome 7.5 of the code.

She had failed to ensure that updated information had been provided to the lender in relation to the balance of the purchase price for property A, and in doing so had breached principle 6.

She had provided misleading information to the lender in relation to the balance of the purchase price for property B, and in doing so had breached principle 6. 

She had failed to ensure that updated information had been provided to the lenders in relation to the balance of the purchase price for property B, and in doing so had (i) breached principles 2 and 6; (ii) failed to achieve outcome 10.1 of the code; and (iii) caused or contributed to a failure to achieve outcome 10.2 of the code.

The respondent’s repeated misconduct had been motivated by her desire to complete the transactions without proper regard for her regulatory duties. She was reacting to events and was under pressure to complete the transactions. While she was an experienced solicitor, she was not experienced in the type of conveyancing transactions undertaken and had no knowledge of her anti-money laundering responsibilities. She had caused damage to the reputation of the profession.

The respondent had demonstrated insight and remorse. She had undertaken relevant training and introduced compliance procedures in the firm to ensure that there would be no repeat of the misconduct.

A fine in the sum of £7,500 properly reflected the seriousness of the misconduct.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £40,000 and that he should undertake six hours of approved professional development training in respect of the Solicitors Accounts Rules and the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, within six months of the date of the judgment.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at Osborn Knight Limited, the respondent had provided information, which he knew or ought to have known was misleading, to Person A, a third party: (i) as to the location of cash belonging to Client A, when it had been in the respondent’s possession since September 2017; and (ii) regarding the purpose of approximately £15,000 cash provided by Client A to the respondent. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. He had acted dishonestly.

Between September 2017 to January 2022, the respondent had failed to: (i) record Client A’s monies in a client ledger; (ii) return client money promptly to Client A; and (iii) maintain proper accounting records. He had thereby breached rules 14.1, 14.3, 15.1, 29.1(a) and 29.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 4 of the SRA Principles 2011; rules 2.3, 2.5 and 8.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and principle 7 of the 2019 Principles. 

The circumstances of the matter were complex and genuinely unusual, to such an extent that they justified a departure from the presumptive sanction of a strike-off when dishonesty had been proved. 

The respondent had not been motivated by direct personal gain. He had genuinely believed that he was following his client’s instructions. He had acted misguidedly, and in so doing, he had caused stress and anxiety to Person A, and damage to the reputation of the solicitors’ profession.

There had not, however, been direct financial loss to any party as the monies had been returned in full. The dishonesty had been of brief duration in a long and otherwise unblemished career. The SDT was satisfied that the misconduct would not be repeated and that there was no risk to the public. 

Given the nature and seriousness of the matters found proved, and the respondent’s culpability, the SDT had determined that a fine of £40,000 was appropriate and proportionate. It also considered that the respondent should undertake six hours of professional development training in respect of the Solicitors Accounts Rules and the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP, on 22 September 2023, the respondent had sent an email which was false and/or misleading to person B stating: ‘Once we receive the signed and completed D81 from you, we will withdraw [Client A’s] application from court. Until then it will remain in place’, when there had been no such application.

She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs. 

On 26 September 2023, she sent an email to CW, a colleague, telling her to mislead person B, in the following terms: ‘Tell him client says we will withdraw our application to court as soon as we receive the signed docs from him (he doesn’t know we haven’t issued… we just led him to believe we did)’.

She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the code. 

The respondent had admitted all the allegations, and that her conduct was dishonest. 

The parties 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 the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The respondent had admitted to knowingly misleading the opposing party, who was unrepresented, on two occasions and attempting to involve a junior colleague. She had claimed to be acting on her client’s instructions and out of frustration with prolonged proceedings, but neither explanation excused her conduct. Solicitors had to act honestly and advise clients appropriately; client instructions did not justify dishonesty.

Dishonesty undermined the administration of justice and public confidence in the profession. Given the deliberate and repeated nature of the respondent’s misconduct, striking off was the only appropriate sanction, there being no exceptional circumstances to allow for a lesser sanction. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,000.

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

The allegations against the respondent were that, while in practice as a solicitor at Reed Smith between 22 September 2023 and 13 November 2023, he had falsely claimed to the firm that he had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. He had thereby breached principles 2.1.2, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the Overseas and Cross-Border Practice Rules (2019). 

On or around 19 October 2023, he had provided the firm with a falsified medical report concerning his purported cancer diagnosis and treatment, and his ability to work. He had thereby breached principles 2.1.2, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the Principles. 

The respondent had admitted all the allegations, including that his conduct had been dishonest. It had been submitted that exceptional circumstances applied, such that striking the respondent from the roll would be a disproportionate sanction.

The respondent’s acts of dishonesty were individually serious, and cumulatively extremely serious. His initial act of dishonesty had been motivated by his desire to take time off work. Thereafter, he had continued to perpetrate dishonest acts in order to conceal his initial lie. 

He had had numerous opportunities to correct the false impression made before he was confronted by the firm. He had not done so. Instead, he had compounded his initial lie with further acts of dishonesty, including taking the extraordinary step of falsifying medical evidence.

The harm caused by such conduct was clear. Members of the public, notwithstanding their sympathy for his personal circumstances, would be extremely concerned that a solicitor had lied about a serious health condition in order to take leave from work, and thereafter had compounded that lie with further untrue statements, going so far as to fabricate medical evidence in support of that lie.

The SDT had considered whether the respondent’s personal difficulties and clinical condition were sufficient to bring him in line with the residual category of cases that were exceptional.

While the SDT was sympathetic to the respondent’s personal difficulties and mental health issues, they were not exceptional. Furthermore, they did not excuse his conduct and did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a lesser sanction.

Accordingly, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Streathers Solicitors LLP, between 16 August 2019 and 20 September 2022, the respondent had caused or allowed payments to be made from the firm’s client account in circumstances where he did not have his clients’ instructions to do so, which had led to a cash shortage of up to £1,174,493.62. He had thereby breached principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and rule 20.1(f) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011; and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 5.1 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019 and paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. He had acted dishonestly.

On or about 27 June 2022, the respondent had inserted a signature onto a letter to HMRC on behalf of person A without their knowledge or consent, and had caused it to be sent to HMRC, purporting to demonstrate that the letter had been signed by person A when it had not, and in doing so had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct.

The respondent’s motivation was financial gain. His misconduct had caused great harm to the firm and to person A. It was aggravated by his proven dishonesty, and in that it was deliberate, calculated and repeated and had taken place over a period of three years. The respondent had abused his position of power and authority as a partner in the firm. 

The SDT had considered the relevant authorities, which emphasised that a finding of dishonesty would ordinarily result in striking off, save in exceptional circumstances. It had examined the dishonesty itself, considering its nature, scope, and extent and the degree of culpability before determining if there were any exceptional circumstances in the case. No exceptional circumstances had been identified, and there were no mitigating factors that would mitigate the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct.

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 £29,451.