Anthony Sheil

  • Application 11600-2017
  • Admitted 1966
  • Hearing 24 March 2017
  • Reasons 10 April 2017

Upon the respondent agreeing, on the conclusion of the present proceedings, (i) to apply within 14 days for voluntary removal from the roll pursuant to section 8(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974; (ii) for five years from the date of that removal from the roll, not to seek restoration thereto under section 8(2) of the act; and (iii) to be subject to section 41 of the act and not seek or accept employment or remuneration in connection with the provision of legal services by a solicitor, partner or member of a limited partnership, recognised body, legal disciplinary practice, alternative business structure or any other entity regulated by the SRA, or any other approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, without first obtaining written permission from the SRA and disclosing a copy of the statement of agreed facts and outcome to the prospective employer, the SDT made no order, save that the respondent should pay costs of £10,000.

As at 30 September 2014, the respondent had been in breach of rule 20.9 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had breached rule 1.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 and principle 5.

Between 21 April and 5 October 2011, he had breached rule 22 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 and rule 1.04 of the code, and from October 2011 onwards, rule 20.1 of the 2011 rules and principles 4 and 10.

On 13 September 2011, he had breached rule 22 of the 1988 rules.

He had breached rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the 2011 rules.

Between 1 July 2011 and 5 October 2011, he had breached rules 1(f), 1(g), 32(1), 32(2), 32(5), 32(7) and 32(8) of the 1998 rules and rule 1.06 of the code, and from 6 October 2011 onwards he had breached rules 1.2(e), 1.2(f), 29.1, 29.2, 29.9, 29.12 and 29.15 of the 2011 rules and principles 6 and 10.

On 26 April 2013, he had breached principles 2 and 6.

The proposed outcome, namely the respondent’s voluntary removal from the roll, his agreement not to seek restoration to the roll and his agreement to be subject to the terms of section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, adequately reflected the misconduct which he had admitted.

His age and health were noted and his indication that he did not wish to return to practice was accepted.