- Application 11705-2017
- Hearing 20-21 March 2018
- Reasons 6 April 2018
The SDT ordered that as from 21 March 2018 except in accordance with Law Society permission (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.
The respondent had procured, arranged and received (both into his personal bank account and into the account of a company of which he was the 100% shareholder)
monies which were derived from Axiom Funds and which were corrupt and improper payments from a company, LAL, owned and run by a personal friend (RH) that supplied services to Tandem XJA Limited (trading as Tandem Law) in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. The respondent had acted dishonestly.
The respondent had arranged for (or acquiesced in) the passing to third parties (without client consent) of confidential information belonging to Tandem clients so that the said third parties could cold-call the clients offering remortgage services in breach of principles 2 and 6. The respondent had acted recklessly.
The respondent’s conduct was motivated by financial gain for himself, to the detriment of the Axiom Fund, and was aggravated by his proven dishonesty.
The SDT was satisfied that it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor without the permission of the SRA. That was necessary for the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession.
Accordingly, it was appropriate and proportionate to make a section 43 order restricting the employment of the respondent.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £35,000.