SDT decisions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for six months from 25 March 2025. Upon the expiry of that fixed term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to conditions imposed indefinitely by the SDT: that he might not: (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; or as a freelance solicitor; or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

The respondent, while in practice as the sole director and manager of A&T Legal Ltd t/a Leaside Law, had failed to ensure that the firm complied with an order of the court made on 28 February 2020 to pay wasted costs, thereby breaching paragraph 2.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; paragraph 8.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019; and principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. 

He had failed to cooperate with the SRA, breaching paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code for Solicitors, paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 8.1 of the Code for Firms; and principles 2 and 5.

He had failed to comply or ensure that the firm had complied with decisions made by the SRA which directed him and/or the firm to pay financial penalties for regulatory breaches, thereby breaching: paragraph 7.3 of the Code for Solicitors; paragraphs 3.2 and 8.1 of the Code for Firms; and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

The respondent, as a solicitor and manager of the firm, was directly responsible for disregarding a court order and wilfully refusing to allow his firm to be regulated. The impact of his conduct was high. His failure to comply with a court order had resulted in solicitors representing the party awarded wasted costs repeatedly contacting the firm regarding unpaid sums due to their client. In addition, the respondent’s conduct had led to three separate regulatory investigations with continuous and numerous calls to and correspondence with him. 

An aggravating feature of the respondent’s conduct was non-compliance over a lengthy period of time. 

The reputation of the profession was undermined where a solicitor, particularly the manager of a firm, disregarded court orders and ignored regulatory sanctions. 

The respondent’s conduct was so serious that neither a reprimand nor a fine would address the misconduct. To protect the public and the reputation of the profession, he should be suspended from practice for a period of six months, and further should be subject to indefinite restrictions to protect the public interest.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,736.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (owner, director and manager of the firm, Osmond Solicitors Ltd) should pay a fine of £5,001. 

The SDT ordered that the second respondent (the firm’s COLP and COFA) should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months from 25 February 2025. The SDT further ordered that the second respondent might not: (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body, or as a freelance solicitor, or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration; (iii) hold client money; or (iv) be a signatory on any client account. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Osmond Solicitors Ltd, the first respondent had, between 12 March 2014 and 3 October 2017, in respect of one or all of the matters identified in Appendix 2 to the section 12 statement, caused or allowed payments to be made from the firm’s client account in circumstances other than in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction being undertaken by the firm and the funds arising therefrom, or in respect of the delivery by the firm of a service forming part of its normal regulated activities. In doing so, he had breached rules 6.1, 14.5 and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; and principles 2, 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

Between 12 March 2014 and 3 October 2017, in respect of one or all of the matters identified in Appendix 2, being at all relevant times a member of the firm and the partner with primary responsibility for its relationship with Person A, in respect of matters connected to Person A, the first respondent had materially contributed to the firm’s anti-money laundering failures by failing adequately or at all to: (i) conduct ongoing monitoring of its business relationships with such entities, contrary to regulation 8 or to regulation 28(11) of the Money Laundering Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (2017 MLRs); and (ii) apply enhanced customer due diligence measures and enhanced ongoing monitoring where indicated, contrary to regulation 14 to regulation 33 of the 2017 MLRs, thereby failing to achieve principles 6 and 8 of the 2011 Principles, and failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

While in practice as a solicitor, director and/or the COFA and COLP of the firm, the second respondent had, between 1 January 2015 and 3 October 2017, in respect of one or all of the matters identified in Appendix 2, allowed payments to be made from the firm’s client account in circumstances other than in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction being undertaken by the firm and the funds arising therefrom, or in respect of the delivery by the firm of a service forming part of its normal regulated activities, thereby breaching: (i) rules 6.1, 14.5, and 20.1 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011; (ii) principles 6 and 8; and (iii) failing to achieve outcome 7.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondents in accordance with the two statements 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 respondents’ admissions to the allegations and the associated breaches of the principles, rules and codes of conduct had been properly made. 

Despite the fact that the transactions had not resulted in loss to any client or third party and there being nothing to suggest that the second respondent had profited from the misconduct, that misconduct fell within the range to merit striking off from the roll. However, given the indefinite restrictions proposed, in addition to the period of suspension, the SDT believed that the public would be adequately protected from the second respondent in the future.

The SDT acknowledged the regret that the first respondent had expressed for his mistaken belief that he could rely on assurances provided to him by his co-partner whom he respected, trusted and had known for over 10 years. Nevertheless the first respondent’s misconduct was moderately serious. A reprimand or a restriction order was not appropriate in the circumstances. However, given the specific nature of the misconduct, neither the protection of the public nor the protection of the reputation of the legal profession justified suspension or strike-off, and a fine was therefore appropriate.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000. The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £50,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at Seddons Law LLP, the respondent had provided misleading statements to his clients and firm, or caused such information to be provided, about the progress of immigration matters, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019; and paragraphs 1.4 and 7.11 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

In or around May 2020, the respondent had altered an agreement, to facilitate misleading information to be provided to the Home Office, which he knew would be relied upon but which he knew not to be true, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019; and paragraph 2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct was high. The main aggravating feature was that all of the allegations proved against him involved dishonesty which had continued over an extended period of time. 

The respondent had had a previously unblemished career and had self-reported his conduct to his managing partner. It was further noted that he had cooperated with the investigation into his conduct and had made prompt admissions when interviewed. The SDT, however, afforded those matters limited weight during the balancing exercise, given the likelihood of discovery at that point.

Having considered the authorities, the SDT could not find any exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction other than striking-off.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £39,612.50 plus VAT of £7,922.50.