• Application 11701-2017
  • Admitted 1987
  • Hearing 5 February 2018
  • Reasons 12 March 2018

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

The respondent had failed to treat his client JP fairly by failing to provide him with adequate information about the costs of his matter; obtaining payments on account of costs from him when he had received interim payments from the defendant’s insurers; failing to inform him that he was receiving payments on account of costs from the defendant’s insurers; and failing to account to him for costs and/or damages, thus breaching rules 1.02, 1.04, 1.06, 2.03(1) and 2.03(5) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcomes 1.1 and 1.13 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to comply with orders of the court thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 and failing to achieve outcomes 5.3 and 5.4 of the 2011 code.

He had failed to report to the SRA that he had been found to be in contempt of court on 1 April 2016, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 and failing to achieve outcomes 10.3 and 10.4 of the 2011 code.

The respondent’s misconduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated and had continued over a period of time. He had taken advantage of a vulnerable person and the impact of that was that JP felt wronged and had suffered financially.

The respondent had been found to have been dishonest. There were no exceptional circumstances such that the case might be held to fall into the residual category referred to in the judgment in Sharma. Quite apart from dishonesty, the respondent’s conduct had been reprehensible. No lesser sanction than striking off the roll was appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,673.