SDT decisions and interventions

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

While she was in practice as a solicitor and director at Furse Sanders Limited, she had caused or allowed the firm to undertake and charge for work done under a lasting power of attorney for client A in the knowledge that the LPA had been revoked, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

In respect of client A, she had caused or allowed the firm to withdraw monies from the client account for the firm’s costs without providing written notification to client A of the costs incurred and in excess of what was agreed and/or fair and reasonable, thereby breaching rules 17.2, 20.1 and 20.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, breaching principles 2, 4, 6 and 10, and failing to achieve outcomes (1.12) and (1.13) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

While acting in the estate of JD (deceased), she had caused or allowed the firm to: (i) raise a bill of costs totalling £40,315.80, which exceeded the fixed fee agreed with the estate’s executors; and (ii) withdraw monies totalling around £37,915.80 from the client account which was in excess of the agreed fixed fee, thereby breaching the 2011 rules and principles 2, 4, 6 and 10.

Between 18 April 2018 and 1 May 2018, she had caused or allowed one or more improper transfers of client money to be made from the firm’s client account to an unregulated entity which did not operate a client account, thereby breaching rules 6.1, 7.1, 13.1, 14.1 and 20.1 of the accounts rules and principles 2, 4, 6 and 10.

The respondent had been motivated by financial gain.

She had caused harm to her clients. The estate of JD had been diminished by the improper retention of the deducted amount, and client A had paid fees that were excessive, unreasonable and unfair. Further, she had caused harm to the reputation of the profession.

The respondent had displayed limited insight into her misconduct. She had a previously unblemished record and had cooperated with the applicant’s investigation. In view of the serious nature of her misconduct, in that it had involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers.

While in practice as a partner at Southall Solicitors (t/a Malik Law Solicitors), the respondent, registered as a foreign lawyer on 12 December 2009, had made false and misleading statements (both orally and in writing) to the SRA’s forensic investigation officers (FIOs) to the effect that the firm held no practice papers, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

She had failed to comply with section 44B notices served on her, requiring production of the firm’s practice papers, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7. She had acted dishonestly.

She had made false and misleading statements (both orally and in writing) to the SRA’s FIOs to the effect that the firm had no clients, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7. She had acted dishonestly.

In May 2018, at a meeting and in emails, the respondent had made false and misleading statements to the SRA (i) to the effect that the recommencement of the firm’s activities at that time was a course she had specifically agreed with Mr Faraque (previously a partner in the firm), following telephone conversations between them; and (ii) providing various email addresses for Mr Faraque, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7. She had acted dishonestly.

In a June 2018 application notice and email, the respondent had made false and misleading statements to the High Court and the firm’s intervention agent to the effect that Mr Faraque was engaged with and supportive of her application to set aside an order (the second order) and relevant interventions (as well as the adjournment of a hearing from 20 to 25 June 2018), thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 6 and 7, and failing to achieve outcome 5.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. She had acted dishonestly.

She had failed at any time to swear and serve the affidavit required by paragraph 18 of the second order, notwithstanding numerous warnings and reminders, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, 6 and 7. She had acted recklessly.

The respondent’s motivation had been to frustrate the SRA investigation and its attempts to regulate the practice as well as the intervention agents. The main aggravating factor was her dishonesty.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,000.

On 16 November 2021, the panel resolved to intervene into Garner Canning Ltd – head office at 11 Aldergate, Tamworth B79 7DL, and offices also at 301-303 Chester Road, Castle Bromwich B36 0JG; Clinton House, High Street, Coleshill B46 3BP and 133 Long Street, Atherstone CV9 1AD – and into the practices of Martin Canning and Terence Mills at Garner Canning Ltd.

The grounds of intervention into Canning and Mills’ practices at Garner Canning Ltd were:

• Failure to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, the Principles (2019) and the Accounts Rules (2019), which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended); and
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients.

The grounds of intervention into Garner Canning Ltd were:

• One or more of the terms of the firm’s licence have not been complied with; and
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients.

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA, tel: 0333 321 4405; email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk, has been appointed as the Society’s agent.